Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI REGIME (BRITISH POLICY)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose, in agreement with other Powers, to take any action after the war designed to prevent power in Germany remaining in the hands of men and women who have played an active part in the Nazi party; and what action is proposed?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I made it clear in reply to a Question on 4th March that the major purposes of our policy towards Germany after the war will not be attainable so long as the present régime in Germany continues. The action which His Majesty's Government propose to ensure the removal of that régime is the defeat of Germany by force of arms.

Mr. Dugdale: Was it on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman that the speech I made in Birmingham was not broadcast to Germany, on the ground that it suggested that this very policy should be pursued and that these people should be removed?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand from my answer that that can hardly have been so, since we are in such close agreement.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Foreign Secretary see that the Government give the closest military co-operation with the heavy blows that are being struck against Nazi forces at Stalingrad?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (FAR EAST)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is conducting the negotiations with the Japanese Government for the despatch by the International Red Cross of food, clothing, tobacco and medicines to British prisoners of war; what is the date of the last Japanese refusal to admit them; and are negotiations being continued?

Mr. Eden: The negotiations have been conducted by the Foreign Office on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. While the Japanese Government has refused to allow special relief ships under Red Cross auspices to proceed to the Far East, agreement has beer, reached for sending medical and other supplies by the ships used for the exchange of nationals and I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 10th November.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question, "Are negotiations being continued?"

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, we are still trying to improve matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (RELEASE OF INTERNEES)

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and the Merchant Service detained in North Africa have been released from custody?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. So far as is known, all British personnel interned in French North Africa have now been released. Arrangements are being made for their early repatriation to this country.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the


position of members of the International Brigade who have been interned in French North Africa?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to what is happening to ex-members of the International Brigade who were sent to North Africa?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all persons in North Africa who had been imprisoned because of their opposition to Nazi domination have been liberated; whether all laws and decrees inspired by Nazi ideology have been abrogated; and whether the persons affected included Jewish people interned for racial reasons, international brigaders and Spaniards who fought in the Spanish civil war and are now imprisoned, interned or working in forced labour companies in North Africa?

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Fighting French and Spanish Republican prisoners in North Africa and Morocco have been released; and whether arrangements will be made for their future security by enabling them actively to serve the cause of the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: As the House is aware, North Africa is still a zone of military operations under the command of the United States Commander-in-Chief. His Majesty's Government have, of course, been in consultation with the United States Government on these matters. Hon. Members will have seen the statement recently made by President Roosevelt upon which I cannot comment at this juncture.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that we have a political representative there, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations that the Free French prisoners should be allowed to join General de Gaulle and not be left to the mercy of the Darlan Fascist régime; and will he see that these prisoners are referred to in terms of liberation and not of amnesty?

Mr. Eden: As I understand it, these French prisoners have almost all of them been released. In point of fact, one of the most distinguished generals—General

Bethouard, I think it was—announced the other day, is Chief of Staff to General Giraud, so I do not really know what my hon. Friend means.

Mr. G. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects information that all these prisoners in the International Brigade and others have been released?

Mr. Eden: I cannot say, for the obvious reasons I have already explained.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH SOMALILAND

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the position of French Somaliland and the port of Jibuti, in view of the developments in North Africa?

Mr. Eden: I have up to the present received no information showing the attitude of the authorities at Jibuti towards recent events in French North Africa.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation in French Somaliland and Jibuti makes it very difficult for Ethiopia to get contact with the outer world in the normal way, and will he see that the situation is reviewed in the light of these facts?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend may be quite sure that the point he has put is very much in my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Incapacitated N.C.O.s (Rank)

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the anxiety caused to Royal Air Force non-commissioned officers on operational duties by the fact that in the event of being temporarily incapacitated by wounds or illness they are liable to forfeit their rank, which both involves loss of pay and is liable to be misunderstood by the public; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. Airmen who are temporarily withdrawn from aircrew duty on account of wounds or illness do not forfeit their rank.

Royal Observer Corps Centres (Men over 50)

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Air why members of the Royal Observer Corps should now be compelled to retire when they reach the age of 50 whereas men above this age are recruited for the Home Guard?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state the exact terms of the age restrictions introduced into the Royal Observer Corps; and whether he has considered the prejudicial effect on the morale of that service of his proposals?

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the shortage of man-power he will make a statement on his decision to dismiss the members of the Cardiff Centre Royal Observer Corps who are over 50 years of age and have nearly four years of efficient service to their credit, which has been highly praised by those responsible for the corps during periods of heavy raids and, particularly, as men of this age are still being recruited for the Home Guard and other services?

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Air why it has been decided to replace all members of Royal Observer Corps centre crews over the age of 50 years with younger men from the Royal Air Force; and whether he will consider first combing out the young men who joined the Royal Observer Corps to avoid military service before disturbing ex-service men who, from patriotic motives, joined the Royal Observer Corps before the outbreak of hostilities?

Sir A. Sinclair: There has been some misunderstanding. There is no intention of making wholesale dismissals in the Royal Observer Corps. All that is at present being done is to replace plotters and tellers over the age of 50 at Royal Observer Corps Centres—who represent a fraction only of the total personnel of the Corps—by immobile young women under 35, whom experience has shown to be particularly well suited for this exacting work. This step has been found necessary in order to maintain at the highest possible level the efficiency of the Centres which are operationally an integral part of the activities of the Royal Air Force Fighter

Command. Not only has the work at these Centres become increasingly complex since the war began, owing to the introduction of new technical devices, but activity is now almost continuous throughout the 24 hours, owing to the greatly increased amount of flying which takes place over this country and to the fact that the Royal Observer Corps is responsible for tracking friendly as well as hostile aircraft. The work calls for alert minds, quick reactions and cool nerves, and the age level of those engaged on it must be lowered if it is to be done with the rapidity and accuracy required.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking this on an individual basis, because there is great variation between men of 50, and many are much more mentally and physically alert than others, and it seems a very hard ruling to rule out an entire class?

Colonel Evans: In view of the necessity for elucidating the position put by my right hon. Friend, perhaps it would be better if we pursued this matter on the Adjournment of the House?

Sir A. Sinclair: My answer to the first Supplementary Question is, "Yes, Sir." I have most carefully considered the alternatives which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but I have been convinced that the only way to increase the efficiency. of these centres with the necessary speed is to introduce this age-limit in the Centres, and I would only add that I welcome the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans).

Major Petherick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men over 50 have in many cases extremely alert minds, and will he therefore really reconsider this very important point, as his hon. and gallant Friend suggests?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think it would be possible under the arrangements suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite to explain why the particular and most exacting character of this work demands young, fresh people to do it.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect of the proposal on the Corps as a whole?

Wing-Commander James: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the particular nature of the necessary reforms is


explained the Royal Observer Corps themselves will appreciate the necessity for this improvement?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am sure that that is so, and I would ask hon. Members to realise that the motive for the introduction of this new measure is not only the protection of our homes and factories in this country, but also the protection of the lives of our air crews.

Mr. Hannah: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question, but I want to raise it on the Adjournment.

Women's Auxiliary Air Force

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that children are recognised as legal dependants of widows, they will be so recognised for service allowances when the widow joins the Women's Auxiliary Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend concerns all three Service Departments. It is being looked into and a decision wil be announced very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that at least four years are needed for the design and production of an aeroplane engine suitable for civil aviation after the war; and whether any steps are now being taken to design an engine suitable for civil aviation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Ben Smith): I am satisfied that the immense efforts which have been, and continue to be, devoted to the design and development of aero engines for war purposes will enable us to provide post-war British civil aviation with engines which will compare favourably with any in the world.

Mr. Perkins: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any steps have yet been taken to further civil aviation, or are the Department waiting until hostilities cease?

Mr. Smith: Current aero engine development and design for essential military purposes automatically embrace conditions appropriate for civil use, such as

high speed take-off and high cruising power, with a minimum of fuel consumption consonant with the maximum reliability and minimum cost of maintenance.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware that an Interdepartmental Committee on Civil Aviation was appointed in August, 1941, and that this committee submitted an interim Report 10 months ago; and whether the. Government have yet come to any decision?

The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend's Question on 18th November.

Mr. Perkins: Do we understand that it is the wish of the Government that all air transport after the war should be run exclusively by Pan-American Railways?

Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly not.

Mr. Granville: If the American company has similar designs on the drawing board will my hon. Friend see that something is done to get on with the job of financing civil aeroplanes in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTION, LIVERPOOL

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can make a statement in connection with the charges of theft and conspiracy involving £500,000 against Charles R. Clare, a company director and a Liverpool city councillor, John H. Mills, senior naval inspector officer and Miss Maud Tester; and whether he has seen the statement made by the Government prosecuting counsel at the Liverpool Assizes on Monday, 2nd October?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have seen a report of the statement by prosecuting counsel to which my hon. Friend refers. The matter is receiving the close attention of my Noble Friend, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Thorne: As one of these men was a city councillor of Liverpool, can my hon. Friend say whether the city of Liverpool will call upon him to resign his seat?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no information on that point, and as this is to be the subject of appeal, I do not think I ought to say any more now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRAFFIC BEACONS

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether a decision has been reached as to the removal of traffic beacons especially those which, having lost their globes, are a double menace to pedestrians during blackout hours?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings explained in answer to Questions on 3rd February and 7th October last, the total amount of iron which could be obtained by removing the beacons is only about 1,000 tons, and it would be comparatively costly to collect. For this reason it is not at present proposed to remove them.

Sir S. Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that this is not merely a question of the recovery of a certain amount of scrap but a serious menace to pedestrians in the blackout?

Mr. Noel-Baiter: I have great sympathy with that aspect of the matter, but there is a great shortage of labour, and it would require a lot to get these beacons out of the streets.

Sir Joseph Lamb: But is it fair that garden gates should be taken while these are left, even if the total amount involved is only 1,000 tons?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Gates are very much easier to remove.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCER GAS VEHICLES

Mr. Leslie: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what progress has been made with respect to producer-gas traction in view of the utilisation of coke and the saving of petrol?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Gas producer units for public service vehicles are in production and are being allocated as they become available to selected public service vehicle undertakings. Plans for the production of units for goods vehicles are well advanced and deliveries on a quantity pro-

duction basis are expected early in the new year. The fuel used will be almost entirely anthracite of a defined specification, but the possibility of using a wider range of fuels is under continuous review. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that on 30th October, 1942, there were on the roads of this country 1,383 vehicles operating on producer gas.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY WAGONS (OVERLOADING)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether he is aware that the managers of some railway goods yards and particularly those in the Liver pool district, are habitually overloading railway wagons, thereby causing waste of fuel, damage to rolling stock and locomotives and unnecessary delays; and whether he will cause the railway companies to put a stop to this practice?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not aware that railway wagons are being overloaded as my hon. Friend suggests; but if he will let me know which goods yards he has in mind and will provide me with information which will enable me to identify the wagons, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (HIGH-SPEED DRIVING)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary' Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, what steps he has taken to impress upon motorists the need to drive more slowly in order to economise in petrol and rubber and to reduce the number of road accidents?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In co-operation with the Ministry of Information, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Service Departments, my Ministry have endeavoured, by widespread publicity, to induce private motorists, service drivers and drivers of heavy passenger and goods vehicles to avoid driving at high speeds. The assistance of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has also been obtained. The purpose of this campaign is to bring home to all operators and drivers of road vehicles the fact


that driving at high speed is not only dangerous, but also exceedingly wasteful of fuel and rubber. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity of explaining once again that the fuel and rubber situation is very serious, and that to drive at high speed, except on urgent Government or Service business, is most unpatriotic.

Mr. Lipson: Are the measures which the hon. Gentleman has outlined being actively pursued?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. They are being intensified month by month.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the hon. Gentleman take special note of the motor-cyclists belonging to Service Departments who travel at 50 m.p.h. and over?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Service drivers have very strict instructions from their own commanders.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEAP FARES

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many representations have been received respecting the abolition of cheap fares and return fares at slightly reduced rates; whether any further consideration is being given to this matter; whether the matter is open to review after an experimental period; what action is to be taken respecting any increased income on any transport service due to the abolition of previous facilities; and whether the latest hour for ordinary workmen's tickets will be raised to 8.30 a.m.?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The decision to withdraw the ordinary cheap day tickets and other cheap tickets for various classes of pleasure travel on the railways was taken in order to reduce unnecessary travel, and thus to help the railways to deal with the present very heavy essential traffic of passengers and goods. So long as the present difficult transport conditions continue, I can hold out no hope to my hon. Friend that the decision will be reversed. I have received about 120 communications on the subject, of which 29 were from representative bodies. The purpose of the measure is to reduce revenue, by reducing traffic. If, however, any increased revenue should result, it will accrue to the

Exchequer, through the operation of the Railway Control Agreement. In answer to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I would have given to-day to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) if he had been in his place.

Mr. Sorensen: While entirely appreciating both the motive and purpose of the reduction in facilities, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would not reconsider this matter at an early date, in view of the apparently quite legitimate requests and complaints by those using transport in London at the present time? Would he be prepared to receive a deputation on this matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am always ready to receive deputations, and I would certainly receive one in this case, which is, I admit, one of great difficulty. I would not like to hold out any hope that the general abolition of cheap fares put on originally in order to encourage travel off the peak hours could be reconsidered, but on the particular question of extending the time for ordinary workmen's tickets I am giving that the closest attention and I will let my hon. Friend know the result of the deliberations of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCAST TALKS (CONTROL)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Information whether he will revise the arrangements under which the British Broadcasting Corporation presently works so as to secure either an arrangement under which the Minister of Information is responsible to the House of Commons for the talks produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation or, alternatively, full control by the British Broadcasting Corporation of their programmes, free from the Ministry of Information or the exercise of political pressure by Members of the House of Commons?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): In the view of my right hon. Friend there could be no development more distasteful to the House or more boring to the public than that the Ministry of Information should become responsible for all the talks given in the B.B.C. services.

Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the result of the present system


of dual control means, in effect, that there is no control by this House at all? Is he satisfied with that situation?

Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Member will appreciate that the present arrangement is one which has been necessitated by war conditions. At the present time the B.B.C. accept the direction of the Ministry of Information in regard to all broadcasting matters which affect the national war effort, and I believe it is the general desire of the House that, apart from that one qualification, the B.B.C. should be free to conduct their own business.

Mr. Brown: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Information, in private correspondence, expressly repudiates that responsibility and that it was precisely because of that that I put this Question down to try and find out who is responsible?

Mr. Thurtle: I am not familiar with the private correspondence of my right hon. Friend, but the position is as I have just given it in my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF CANTEEN)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he is aware that proposals for a civil servants' canteen were made some three years ago by the Ministry of Labour on behalf of its own staff; that about a year ago the Ministry of Works and Planning agreed to proceed on the basis of a canteen for all civil servants in the Inner Manchester Circle and Kendall Milne's premises were selected as suitable; that, although nearly 2,000 civil servants have promised support to the canteen, no steps appear yet to have been taken to institute it; and whether he will indicate the reason for the delay?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): I am informed that the proposal was first put forward 18 months ago. It was beset with difficulties owing to the shortage of suitable accommodation as well as of labour and materials. The scheme was approved in principle in December, 1941; but premises had still to be found and plans prepared, and, on account of the large amount of labour and materials involved, it was

necessary to reconsider it. This has now been done, and instructions have been given that the scheme is to proceed without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCRAP METAL COLLECTION (OFFICER'S SALARY AND ALLOWANCE)

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he will state the salary paid and the motor-car allowance per mile granted to Mrs. Giles, the officer in the North West Region of his Department engaged in the collection of railings and scrap metal?

Mr. Hicks: Mrs. Giles is paid a salary of £260 a year plus £16 2s. cost of living bonus and receives for the use of her car a flat rate allowance of 2¾d. a mile and an annual allowance of £21.

Mr. Wakefield: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether the salary and motor car allowance are the same as for other officers throughout the country?

Mr. Hicks: I think they are the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILINGS REMOVAL, HERTFORDSHIRE

Major Markham: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether any iron railings have yet been removed in Hertfordshire; and whether it is proposed to remove the iron railings around Hatfield Park?

Mr. Hicks: The work of removing iron railings is in hand in a number of districts in Hertfordshire. The railings at Hatfield Park have not been scheduled for removal by the local authority.

Major Markham: Can the hon. Gentleman say why these railings have not been scheduled for removal?

Mr. Hicks: I must inquire of the local authority before being able to reply to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Ship Painting

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that


routine painting of His Majesty's ships by the crews is continued up to the last moment before a ship is docked for refitting and repainting; and whether he will give instructions that unnecessary painting of this kind should not be carried on up to the last moment, in view of the waste of scarce material thereby occasioned?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is the usual practice for ships' companies to paint and red lead their ships during refits. In wartime, ships are in harbour for such a short time that every opportunity for red leading and painting rusted structures must be seized. No doubt the painting referred to by my hon. Friend was done to save work during the docking period and spare the ship's company for leave. I cannot agree that such work is wasteful.

Anti-U-Boat Measures

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to Field Marshal Smuts' recommendation that an authoritative special supreme staff of scientific naval and air experts should be established to supervise a new campaign against U-boats; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. Alexander: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to answer this Question. The campaign against U-boats is constantly and energetically studied and supervised by the Staff and experts of the Admiralty, Air Ministry and Coastal Command, and by a very large band of associated scientists, many of whom are highly distinguished. Our liaison with our Allies is very intimate. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informs me that Field Marshal Smuts authorises him to say that, after examination, he was satisfied that all necessary measures are being taken.

Sir M. Sueter: Will the Government arrange for a Debate on the U-boat menace, not in Secret Session, but at an open Sitting?

Mr. Alexander: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will raise that matter with the Leader of the House.

Sir M. Sueter: asked the Minister of Production whether the three scientific advisers recently appointed to his staff

will be permitted to consider the recommendation recently made by Field Marshal Smuts that, in view of the fact that we have in this country some of the finest scientific genius in the world, a new supreme staff of scientists and other experts should be established to deal with the U-boat menace?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which he has just been given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING

Sir R. Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in conformity with the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, he will, for the purposes of the war, establish an organisation with specified responsibility for directing and knitting together all development and research in respect of merchant shipbuilding, and will also appoint a technical intelligence staff to work in close association with the research group?

Mr. Alexander: The recommendations contained in the Seventeenth Report from the Select Committee are at present under consideration in the Admiralty, and, among them, the recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers. In considering whether it is desirable or possible to establish any closer contact between the Merchant Shipbuilding Department on the one hand, and the Classification Societies, the National Physical Laboratory, the Directorate of Scientific Research at the Admiralty and the technical staffs of shipbuilding firms on the other, I shall of course give close attention to the observations of the Select Committee. I should point out, however, that the existing organisation which deals with this matter in the department of the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding has the closest possible contact with, and co-operation from, these bodies.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Beer and Spirits (Imports)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity of


beer and spirits imported into the West Indies since January, 1942, to latest available date?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The information requested by my hon. Friend is available only in respect of British Guiana, British Honduras, Trinidad, Grenada, and Barbados, and covers the six months ended June, 1942. During that period a total quantity of 97,410 gallons of ale, beer and stout and 60,548 gallons of spirits was imported into the Colonies named.

Mr. MacKinlay: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me just what shipping space it takes to transport this stuff to the West Indies?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. MacKinlay: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me just what shipping space it takes to transport this stuff to the West Indies?

Colonel Stanley: This is a question about beer and spirits going into the West Indies.

Mr. McKinlay: But they take shipping space.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some months ago, when this issue was raised along with the question of foodstuffs, hon. Members received information that this trade was being encouraged to keep open post-war markets?

Colonel Stanley: I think we are trying to maintain in the West Indies the same delicate balance between hard necessity and normal human frailty as we do in this country.

Jamaica Railway Employees' Union

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any further action has been taken to restore the legality of the Jamaica Railway Employees' Union; what action has been taken against those members of the union alleged to have engaged in subversive activity; and what was the precise nature of their offence?

Colonel Stanley: The Authorised Associations Regulations were cancelled by the Governor of Jamaica on 19th November,

and trade unions are now free to resume their former status with the assurance of the Jamaica Government's recognition, and sympathy with their legitimate activities. The members of the Jamaica Railway Employees' Union referred to were detained in the public interest under Regulation 18 (1) of the Jamaica Defence Regulations, 1940, which corresponds to Regulation 18B of the United Kingdom Defence Regulations. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am awaiting a further despatch from the Governor about the reasons which led to the detention of these persons.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction both here and in Jamaica, by reason of the fact that the Railway Employees' Union is now legal, and can he say when the report concerning the alleged subversive activities will be available to the House?

Colonel Stanley: I cannot say when I shall receive it.

Development and Welfare

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to present to Parliament the detailed report on the various schemes of welfare and development initiated by the Stockdale Commission in the West Indies?

Colonel Stanley: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) was informed on 22nd October, a report on progress under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act will shortly be laid on the Table of the House. I will endeavour to expedite the report.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind in taking up his new duties that this Commission was appointed nearly two years ago and that the report was promised several months ago?

Colonel Stanley: I will make the report available as soon as possible.

Detainees, Jamaica

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Colonial subjects and aliens, respectively, at present detained under Regulation 18B in Jamaica; whether Mr. A. W. Domingo is still under detention; and when his case was last under revision?

Colonel Stanley: At the end of October there were nine British subjects and four enemy aliens detained under Jamaica Defence Regulation 18 (1), which corresponds to Regulation 18B in this country. The case of Domingo was reconsidered by the Advisory Committee in August. They were unable to recommend his release in Jamaica and the Governor accepted this advice.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any report been made as to the exact charge against Mr. Domingo?

Colonel Stanley: I shall have to inquire into that. I am going into the whole case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIAN COPPER BELT (SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the subversive activities for which the leaders of the North Rhodesian Mineworkers' Union have been imprisoned; and whether it is now illegal in Northern Rhodesia for the organised workers in a particular industry to concern themselves with the working conditions of the same industry in other countries?

Colonel Stanley: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his Question of 21st October, which indicated the nature of the subversive activities in question, and also made it clear that the men concerned were detained on account solely of their activities as individuals, and not as officials of the Mineworkers' Union. As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative. It is the policy of the Government to promote all legitimate trade union activities.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Undersecretary of State did not state the nature of the subversive activities, but merely said that the activities were subversive and that they were trade union activities?

Colonel Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I have referred, he will see that my right hon. Friend gave a long and quite detailed reply, and one of the statements he made was that certain threats made by these gentlemen were accompanied by the implication of a resort to arms.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL GOVERNORS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon what qualification Governors are appointed to His Majesty's Colonies; the total number of Governors; how many have been appointed during the last 25 years who were not previously in the Colonial Service; and how many were not previously familiar with the Colonies to which they were appointed as Governors?

Colonel Stanley: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state in that reply how many of these Governors either belong to the Labour party or have opinions similar to the Labour party?

Colonel Stanley: In the first place, that question was not put on the Order Paper, and, secondly, it would appear to be exactly that kind of test of conscience to which the hon. Gentleman objects.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether any qualified coloured Governors have been appointed in any Colonies?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

Sir Leonard Lyle: Is it not a fact that even certain Cabinet Ministers go to jobs of which they have had no previous experience?

Following is the answer:

In selecting persons for submission to His Majesty for appointment as Colonial Governors, regard is naturally paid to the special requirements of the particular vacancy and to the experience and ability of the possible candidates. There are 33 Governorships (or the equivalent) in the Colonial Empire, three of which (Bermuda, Malta and Gibraltar) are normally held by military officers. For several years now it has been the recognised policy that the Colonial Service should be the normal field from which appointments, are made to the remaining 30 posts. To give detailed figures would involve more research than has been possible at short notice; but it can be said that the great majority of Governors appointed during


the past 25 years have been members of the Colonial Service. Selection is made from the whole Service (which since 1930 has been a Unified Service), and general qualifications rather than actual experience of the particular Colony whose Governorship happens to be vacant are the criterion. In practice, while some Governors have previously served in their Colonies in a lesser capacity, most have not. Of the Governors at present serving, two have had previous experience of their Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE AIMS

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the questions of annexations, reparations and indemnities in connection with the war settlements?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend can rest assured that these questions will receive careful consideration by the Government at the appropriate time in consultation with the interested Allied Governments and with due regard to the principles enunciated in the Atlantic Charter.

Mr. Thorne: May I take it that the Government know that the damage which is being done during this war is much heavier than that done during the last war, and that when hostilities cease this matter will be dealt with?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION

Synthetic Rubber

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Production whether he is satisfied that he possesses adequate information regarding processes, inventions, designs and patent rights relating to the production of synthetic rubber, in order to judge what would be the most appropriate processes to establish in this country?

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir.

Resources (Allocation)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Production whether he will take all practicable steps to increase the number of factories and contracts allocated for war production in Scotland?

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir. Under the measures announced by my right hon.

Friend in reply to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on 14th October, the Regional Boards are surveying the most congested districts with a view to transferring either work or complete firms to the less congested areas. In determining such transfers and also the allocation of new work, my right hon. Friend and the Supply Ministers are paying special attention to the claims of Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the central industrial belt of Scotland there is still a feeling among both workers and employers that the productive capacity, buildings and energy are not yet fully taken up?

Mr. Garro Jones: That is an aspect of the matter which is being carefully considered, but I would tell my hon. Friend the question of buildings is perhaps the aspect of the matter which is causing the greatest difficulty.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable opinion in Scotland which does not desire war factories alone, which would be scrapped at the end of the war, but wants the Ministry to keep an eye to the future with a view to the transference of the factories to peace-time activities?

Mr. Garro Jones: The Ministry are certainly aware of this feeling, but as to how far it should be taken into account at the present juncture is another matter.

Administrative Arrangements (Select Committee's Report)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Production whether he can assure the House that the recommendations and suggestions contained in the 18th Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, especially those in Sections 4, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 23, are being adopted as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Garro Jones: The bulk of this report relates to matters of administrative arrangement which have been the subject of confidential correspondence between the Committee and the Prime Minister. With regard to many of the principal recommendations contained in the Report, I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 7. Other suggestions made in the Report are being studied by the Departments concerned, and a written reply will, as is customary, be furnished to the Committee as soon as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: What is the use of committee meetings and considered replies when urgency of action is put forward in the Report? Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the advice of officers and men with recent battle experience is being sought and acted upon.

Mr. Garro Jones: There is no lack of a sense of urgency in any of the Departments concerned. The answer to the hon. Member's second question is "Yes."

Mr. George Griffiths: Will not the Cabinet consider handing over this business entirely to this special Expenditure Committee, because they can manage it best?

Mr. A. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that it usually takes six to eight months to get an acknowledgment from the Department? Will he see that action is taken within as many weeks on this occasion?

Mr. Garro Jones: That does not apply to the Question on the Paper. The Committee have specifically commented on the promptitude with which the last Report has been dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Fish (Minimum Size)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the interests of inshore fishermen, in order to conserve valuable food, and in view of the fact that large parts of the North Sea and English Channel are not now being fished, he will consider the possibility of reducing the size of fish that may be marketed to eight inches and of allowing a somewhat wider discretion to local port officers in the matter than they possess at present?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The minimum size limit of nine inches for sea fish sold for human consumption has been operative since 26th October. The effect of the Order is being carefully watched but it is too early to consider the question of amendment. It would not be practicable to have local modifications of the Order.

Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of very valuable foodstuff is being thrown back into the sea

at many ports? Does he not think the time has come to stop this and to give the port officers reasonable discretion to prevent wastage of food?

Mr. Mabane: I do not think that is the case. This small fish is not, in many cases, fit for human consumption. There have been many complaints from distributors that they are being required to take fish which the public do not want.

Major Petherick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of the small fish thrown back die, and will he consider giving the people the benefit of eating them rather than giving that facility to other fish?

Mr. Mabane: On the whole, the flat fish that are thrown back do not die. It is important that they should not be caught under the length of nine inches, because otherwise they have not spawned, and the fishing grounds are denuded. The small fish are not what the distributors or the public want. They merely add to the weight of the catch without adding to its value as foodstuff.

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that informed opinion in the trade thinks that the limit has been made too big, with the result that in many parts so much of the catch has to be thrown back that the fishermen find it unprofitable to put to sea at all?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very valuable foodstuff, in the form of pilchards caught off the Cornish coast, is being thrown back daily? If they cannot be used immediately, will he see that proper tinning arrangements are made?

Mr. Mabane: I think the hon. Lady is aware that pilchards do not come within this Order.

Fish Fryers

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the increased difficulties of fish and chip fryers and caterers in the North Midlands and Yorkshire areas to obtain adequate supplies of fish to provide meals for war workers and their families; and whether, as this form of catering is similar to, and as popular with the workers as, British Restaurants, he will examine the merits of their claim for increased supplies?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware that fish fryers and retailers in many districts cannot obtain all the fish they require, but this is mainly due to the decline in the volume of landings under war conditions. The arrangements now in operation for the distribution of fish provide that all traders will receive their due proportions of available supplies; it would not be possible to increase the entitlement of one section of the industry without hardship to others.

Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these caterers provide midday meals for thousands of war workers who have no canteen facilities or British Restaurants? Are not they entitled to some kind of favourable consideration, in view of the useful contribution they are making in feeding the people in industrial areas?

Mr. Mabane: I am fully aware of the service rendered by these restaurants, but I do not think that the House and the country would agree that any section of the trade should have more favourable consideration than any other.

Mr. Higgs: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to institute a general inquiry into the distribution of fish?

Mr. Mabane: The position is being watched very carefully daily.

Sir Herbert Williams: Why is it that since the zoning scheme was introduced only hake have allowed themselves to be caught?

British Restaurants (Local Authorities' Contracts)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why, for the purpose of establishing British Restaurants, some local authorities have been authorised to make contracts, as agents for his Ministry, on a cost plus profit basis under the terms of the draft prime cost contract, provided by the Ministry of Home Security for emergency use only?

Mr. Mabane: Local authorities are responsible for any building work necessary to enable them to establish British Restaurants. Subject to the Ministry's approval of estimates of expenditure, local authorities make their own arrangements for carrying out work within the limits laid down by my Department. My

Noble Friend is of opinion that it would not be desirable to deprive local authorities of freedom to enter, in suitable cases, into contracts based upon the form of prime cost contracts issued by the Ministry of Home Security. To do so would be to run the risk of delaying the opening of British Restaurants which in many instances have been a matter of great urgency, as, for example, where workers have been billeted in an area in which catering facilities were inadequate. If, however, expenditure were incurred by a local authority in excess of the amount approved as a result of excessive profit being allowed on a cost-plus basis, my Department would disallow such excess.

Sir J. Mellor: As the local authority has no financial interest, and the supervising officer is appointed by the local authority, what adequate guarantee is there against extravagance at the expense of the taxpayer?

Mr. Mabane: It is not right to say that the local authority has no interest—

Sir J. Mellor: I said financial interest.

Mr. Mabane: —or financial interest either, and there is certainly a close check by the Department on any tendency towards excessive expenditure.

Sir J. Mellor: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the local authority has a financial interest? The ratepayers make no contribution whatever.

Mr. Mabane: Certainly it has a financial interest. It has to make the restaurants pay, and it has to meet, the capital cost over a period of years.

Grocery Business, Stradbroke (Male Assistants)

Mr. Granville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the grocery and provision business of G. Rowell Ward, of Stradbroke, Suffolk, is not allowed any male assistants in the same way as other comparable businesses in this district, in view of the fact that it serves a large number of customers in a wide rural area; and whether he will remedy this matter?

Mr. Mabane: I know of no ground for supposing that the business of G. Rowell Ward is not allowed to employ male assistants. I am aware of certain other circumstances in connection with the


business to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but if he will give me details of any further difficulties, I shall be glad to examine the matter.

Mr. Granville: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the present owner, a widow, has five sons serving in the Forces and that her husband died of overwork; and will he recommend to the appropriate Department that the eldest son should be allowed on compassionate grounds to come back from the Forces to assist in running this business?

Mr. Mabane: I am well aware of the particular hardship in this case, where five sons have volunteered for service. It is not within the province of my Department to make an application of the nature to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will discuss it with me afterwards, I shall be glad to see what can be done.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that I have been in communication with the hon. Gentleman's Department for several weeks and that the position is serious, will he now give me an assurance that something will be done?

Mr. Mabane: The Question refers to an apparent prohibition for this firm to employ any male assistants. I know of no such prohibition. The question of the sons is a different one.

Feeding-Stuffs Order (Proof Reading)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give details of the disciplinary action that has been taken against the proof readers of an Order, dated 3rd November, 1942, amending the Feeding-Stuffs Order, 1942?

Mr. Mabane: In this particular case the officers in question have received an injunction, the general intention of which is to secure that they will not do it again.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if a proof reader in a private firm made such puerile mistakes, he would get the sack; and why does he not make an example of these proof readers? What was the cost to the public of this error?

Mr. Mabane: I scarcely think that that is fair. Two junior officers, in checking a very long and complicated schedule, omitted to observe in two cases that "licence" was spelt "linseed" and "make" spelt "cake." That is not an error which demands any such drastic action as the hon. Member suggests.

Bacon and Ham Division (Mr. Calder)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what position Mr. Calder holds in his Ministry; and what were Mr. Calder's connections with bacon factories previous to his appointment?

Mr. Mabane: Mr. Calder is a head of branch in the Bacon and Ham Division of the Ministry. He had no connection with bacon factories before his appointment to this Ministry.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister take steps to dissipate the idea, which is widely held, that Mr. Calder and Mr. Short are a law unto themselves and control the ham and bacon business of the country for the benefit of the big ham and bacon factories?

Mr. Mabane: I scarcely think that that is a fair reflection to make on these officers: There is no doubt that they are doing their job competently and with integrity.

Bread (House of Commons Tea Room)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will have some of the bread made of flour, oats and barley put in the Tea Room?

Mr. Mabane: I shall be glad to, adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion when the arrangements now being made for supplying flour of the kind to which he refers are further advanced.

Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. Gentleman also get in touch with the firm in Edinburgh which is producing oatmeal bread?

Rusks

Wing-Commander James: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether provision for rusks, lately put upon points, may be included in the ration books of children under a certain age?

Mr. Mabane: No special provision is required. Rusks may be bought with the points in the child's ration book, and all children receive the same number of points as adults.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATIONING

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the comparatively small quantities of soap involved, he will reconsider his decision not to make an extra allowance of soap to chimneysweeps such as is made to miners, in view of the extremely and comparably dirty nature of their work?

Mr. Mabane: In view of the supply position, my Department has not been able to supplement the domestic soap ration for any class of worker. Representations have, however, been received from several categories of worker including chimney-sweeps for whom it has not so far been found practicable to provide soap at their place of work as is the case with miners and many other classes of worker. These representations are being actively considered.

Mr. Kerr: When is a decision expected?

Mr. Mabane: I could not say exactly, but I will inform the hon. Member, so that perhaps he will be able to put a Question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINE IMPORTS (ARMED FORCES)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that 200 pipes of port are being imported for the American forces in this country from Portugal and 200 butts of sherry from Spain; and whether he will arrange similar imports for the British and other Allied Forces here.

Mr. Mabane: I am aware of the imports to which my hon. Friend refers. Imports of wine have also been authorised for the Fighting French Forces. No special imports have been approved for British Forces but arrangements are being made for part of certain imports which have recently arrived in this country to be made available for this purpose. It is also hoped to arrange for further small shipments from Australia and South Africa for British Forces.

Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the quantity made available to British Forces will enable the principle of equal drinks for all to be applied?

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN IN COURT (HAT WEARING)

Mr. Burden: asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Justice Hilberry, in the King's Bench Division on 16th November, to the effect that women witnesses and litigants should wear hats in court as in the case of women going into church; and whether, in view of the shortage of materials, and the recent pronouncements by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York that women need not wear hats in church, he has any statement to make?

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is in touch with the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and I expect to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Field Officers (Confidential Reports)

Major Markham: asked the Secretary of State for War what number of A.F. 194 D's have been received in respect of field officers during the past two years; and how many of these have had no action taken on them for over 12 months?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Since 1st January, 1941, about 6,500 confidential reports on A.F.B. 194 D on field officers have been received in the War Office. All these reports are carefully noted. They are then considered whenever vacancies arise in appointments to which this form relates. The number of appointments filled in this period is naturally very much smaller than the number of recommendations received on this form.

Major Markham: Is the Under-Secretary aware that on a great number of the forms no apparent action is taken for 12 months or over, and is the position in process of being remedied?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the recommendations which are received in the War Office must refer, and can only be made operative in relation to the number of vacancies that may exist.

Officers' Courses (Temporary Rank)

Major Markham: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although he has recently conceded that officers going on courses should not lose temporary rank, many officers nominated for courses are posted temporarily to staff or regimental appointments and thus lose temporary rank during that period and during the following course; and whether he will issue immediate orders to remedy this?

Mr. Henderson: When an officer who has held temporary rank for an unbroken period of not less than 30 days is struck off the strength of his unit solely by reason of his having been selected to attend a course, such rank is regranted to him with effect from the date of the beginning of the course. In addition, as was announced by my right hon. Friend on 16th November, an officer holding temporary rank will retain it during any intervening period between the date when he leaves his unit and the beginning of the course (as well as, as hitherto, during the course), provided that he is not posted in the meantime to a vacancy in an establishment carrying a lower rank. Such postings will be avoided as far as possible.

Major Markham: Can we take it as a result of that answer that any officer recommended for a staff college and in consequence having to do an attachment away from his unit, will no longer lose temporary rank?

Mr. Henderson: That is so, except for one qualification, that if ah officer holding, for example, the rank of major is appointed temporarily to a regiment where the vacancy is one for the rank of captain, he will have to revert to his rank of captain.

Major Markham: Does not that bring out the point that a number of officers may lose temporary rank when recommended for a staff course?

Mr. Henderson: To the extent that before he goes on to the course he is posted to a unit in a vacancy which carries lower

rank, and while he occupies that position he must revert to the rank which corresponds to the position. In other words, it is impossible for a major to do the work of a captain and hold the rank of major.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S LAND ARMY (BOOTS)

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that an adequate supply of rubber boots or, alternatively, stout waterproof leather boots are available for members of the Women's Land Army?

Mr. Pym (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In view of the present acute shortage of raw rubber, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the quarterly allocation of rubber which is being allowed for the manufacture of Women's Land Army gumboots is reasonable. All members of the Women's Land Army for whom gumboots are not available, can now be provided with two pairs of strong leather boots and proofed leggings. The boots are subject to the customary inspection before leaving the factory and, if properly greased before use, should be as waterproof as can reasonably be expected.

Lieutenant Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to make sure that the girls do get these boots which are provided for them?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (DEFINITION)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in what terms it is the practice of His Majesty's Government officially to refer collectively to the British Nations defined in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as, "the Dominion of Canada," "the Commonwealth of Australia," "the Dominion of New Zealand," "the Union of South Africa" and "the Irish Free State"?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions (Mr. Emrys-Evans): There is no standardised practice for referring collectively to the countries mentioned. They were included in the definition of Dominions in the Statute of Westminster, 1931. In the report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926 the "group of self-governing communities composed of Great


Britain and the Dominions" were described as being "autonomous communities within the British Empire" and as being "freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

Mr. Granville: May I ask whether it is the practice of His Majesty's Government to refer to the British Nations as the British Commonwealth, in view of the fact that Field-Marshal Smuts and other Dominion statesmen use that term; and, if so, will he ask his right hon. Friend to see that Whitehall Departments and Ministers use the term "British Commonwealth"?

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that nine-tenths of the people who live in the British Empire overseas are proud of the fact that they belong to the British Empire, and of the name?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHMET POWER CO. (CHARGES)

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the Northmet Power Company, Waltham Cross, has issued a notice to consumers that the hours during which a reduced rate operates for the peak load will be changed from the evening to the morning during the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. in the months of January, February and December; that this alteration will mean an increase of approximately 400 per cent. in the rate charged; on what grounds and under what powers this alteration has been made; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter with a view to continuing the present arrangements for firms doing war work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Before the war the electricity peak load occurred in the evening hours; now it is during the morning hours from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. To encourage consumers to take power during non-peak hours the Northmet Power Company had instituted, before the war, reduced rates under their "limited service" tariff in respect of supplies taken outside the hours of the evening peak load. In view of the changed conditions arising from the war the Company have given notice that during December, January and February the rates will be reduced in respect of supplies taken outside the hours of the morning peak load. I see no reason to

intervene in the action taken by the Company which I can only regard as helpful to the war effort.

Mr. Maclean: Does not this change impose an extra expenditure on the part of firms who are doing war work through their having to pay an increased charge for electricity during the new period of the peak load whereas formerly by extending the work for an hour in the evening they escaped that charge?

Mr. Smith: I can appreciate that there will be increased cost in certain cases, but it is essential that the peak load should be kept down as much as possible, and I think that on balance the new period will work out more favourably.

Mr. Maclean: But is it not the case that the balance works very unfairly towards a number of firms who must carry on their work in the hours to which the peak load period has been changed?

Mr. Smith: No doubt it will cut both ways, but if my hon. Friend has a case in mind and cares to consult me, I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR EXPORT TRADE

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give the House as to any steps taken to examine and consider the problem of our post-war overseas trade?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): His Majesty's Government have for some time been actively engaged upon a comprehensive study of post-war economic and commercial policy. The special problems of our export trade have been under detailed investigation since December, 1941, by a committee of business men and officials under my chairmanship.

Dr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend fully appreciate that the post-war internal prosperity of this country is dependent upon the prosperity of our overseas trade?

Mr. Johnstone: Very much so.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Department of Overseas Trade is doing now? So many people are really interested in that.

Mr. Johnstone: It is doing this work.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Fireguard Duty (Age Limit)

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the Civil Defence Duties (Compulsory Enrolment) Order, men who were under the age of 60 years at the date of registration become exempt from further duties upon subsequently attaining that age?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): A man remains liable for fireguard duty under the Compulsory Enrolment Order after he has attained the age of 60, and my right hon. Friend proposes shortly to provide that the same rule shall apply to men doing duty under the Business Premises Order and at the same time to prescribe an age limit at which liability to fireguard duty will cease.

National Fire Service (Women's Amenities)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Home Secretary whether there is a standard of amenities laid down for women in the National Fire Service; and how far this has been adopted?

Miss Wilkinson: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the instructions issued to Regional Commissioners. As I think she is aware, much remains to be done before these standards can be regarded as generally attained.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, LIMITED

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the constitution of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation; whether it operates wholly with moneys provided by His Majesty's Government or whether it includes also private investments; and by whom its directors are appointed?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Regarding the constitution of United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, Limited, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Sir P. Hannon) on 4th April, 1940. Since the occupation of the Balkans by the

enemy, the operations of the Corporation have been extended to many parts of the world. The funds of the Corporation are wholly provided by the Treasury, and its Directors are appointed by the Board, with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government.

GENERAL DE GAULLE (WITHHELD BROADCAST)

Mr. Eden: I undertook during yesterday's Debate to give the House information at the earliest opportunity with regard to the postponement of General de Gaulle's proposed broadcast on 21st November, and I therefore take this first opportunity to inform the House. I must make it plain that I take full responsibility for this decision, which was taken in full agreement with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not want to exaggerate the character of this broadcast, still less to attribute to it any ill intention. I am convinced there was no such intention. But my right hon. Friend and I did not think its delivery at this particular time would be helpful to the extremely tense and serious operations now proceeding in Tunisia, in which not only British but United States Forces are engaged. We could not take the responsibility for allowing anything to happen, as far as we had the power to control it, which might hamper the responsible commanders or make the task of our own troops and those of our Allies more difficult. The 1st British Army, strongly supported by United States Forces, are making their way eastward over enormous distances with the utmost possible speed, and they are greatly helped in their advance by the favourable attitude of the population, and also by the vigorous resistance which the French troops in Tunisia are already offering to the German and Italian invaders.
It must be remembered that this expedition is under United States command. The 1st British Army is subordinated to the Allied Commander-in-Chief. So is the Allied Fleet, which is under Admiral Cunningham, who commands both British and United States warships. The harmony is complete. In a joint undertaking of this character one has to be particularly careful not to do or allow anything which might give an Ally ground for complaint that common difficulties have been aggravated. This applies also


to the field of propaganda of all kinds. His Majesty's Government therefore thought it right to withhold the broadcast. This is not the time to discuss the arrangements which have been made in North Africa between General Eisenhower and the local French authorities. The battle is in an extremely critical phase, and there will be time to go into all these matters when it is won. Meanwhile, I have nothing to add to the President's statement of 17th November, with which His Majesty's Government are in the fullest agreement. I hope that the House will agree with His Majesty's Government that the greatest discretion should be observed in the utterances which may be made while the battle and the general operations are in their present extremely critical phase.

Mr. Stokes: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not an answer to the Question which I put yesterday? May I ask whether we are to understand from what he has just said that neither he nor his Department approved the script of the proposed broadcast?

Mr. Eden: I can only ask my hon. Friend to understand what I said, which was absolutely clear. The decision was taken jointly by the Prime Minister and myself. There is obviously more than one aspect to this matter, which has both a foreign affairs aspect and a military aspect. The decision was taken by two Ministers.

Mr. Stokes: That answer does not meet the point. I asked my right hon. Friend yesterday whether it was not a fact that either he or his Department at first approved the script of that broadcast. Subsequently he and the Prime Minister may have turned it down, but, at first, either he or his Department approved the script.

Mr. Eden: I have given a perfectly full answer in my statement, and I am certainly not going to add anything else to it.

Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that Admiral Darlan is now making frequent broadcasts all over the world and particularly to France? Will he bear in mind the desirability, from a wide and general point of view, of giving all possible facilities to General de Gaulle to broadcast to France as soon as practicable?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member may be absolutely sure that that point is in our minds, but we have also to bear in mind at this moment the critical phase of the military operations.

Mr. Maxton: Was General de Gaulle not as fully aware of the circumstances ruling in North Africa as anyone else? Are we to understand that, in the delicate operations in which his country was particularly concerned. General de Gaulle was not capable of handling the situation in an intelligent way?

Mr. Eden: I was very careful to point out that, as far as I am concerned, no blame attaches to General de Gaulle. He wished to express, quite naturally and properly, his own particular point of view in this matter; but His Majesty's Government may conceivably have a slightly different angle and a slightly different point of view of this operation.

Sir Percy Harris: While recognising the difficulty and the delicacy of the position, will the right hon. Gentleman remember our great obligation to General de Gaulle, who, through three years, gave support to our cause at a time when it was at a very low ebb?

Mr. Eden: Not only do I accept that statement, but I add that His Majesty's Government entered into engagements with General de Gaulle and that those engagements stand.

Mr. A. Bevan: Are we to understand that the position has now been reached in which a general in the field is allowed to decide the Government's Allies in the war? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the decision in North Africa had been taken by the general in the field; the general in the field has accepted Admiral Darlan as a great ally of the United Nations, thereby temporarily disposing of another ally. Have we now reached the point where a general in the field, in the midst of his military preoccupations, is able to decide the Allies of the United Nations? Furthermore—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Mr. Speaker: There is no Question before the House, and there cannot be a Debate.

Mr. Bevan: This is an extremely difficult matter. The right hon. Gentleman has been given the leave of the


House to make this statement, and we are very involved in it. Is it not a fact that there is great discontent among the Free French Forces in Britain and that they are not broadcasting at all now, anywhere?

Mr. Eden: If I may answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the arrangements which General Eisenhower made are made under his authority, and he himself is under the supreme command of the Commander-in-Chief in the United States, who is President Roosevelt. That is the position. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the statement made by President Roosevelt, he will find a reply to every question he has asked.

Mr. Granville: On a point of Order—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxton.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. You, Mr. Speaker, allowed, without any reason at all, the Foreign Secretary, who is now the Leader of the House, to make a statement. There was no Private Notice Question; he simply rose and made a statement. Is it not a fact that the statement arises out of the King's Speech, and is there any reason why legitimate questionings of that statement should now be cut short, since the statement has no connection other than its connection with the King's Speech?

Mr. Speaker: It is a common practice in this House for Ministers to make statements after Questions, without a Private Notice Question having been put to them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is no Question before the House. It is wrong to say that I have cut hon. Members short, as I have allowed many questions to be put.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. These points arise out of the speech made yesterday in the Debate on the King's Speech, and the questions arise out of the reply made by the Leader of the House to that speech. In view of that position, is it right either that the statement should have been made at all or that we are to be prevented from asking questions upon it?

Sir William Davison: Is not the hon. Member incorrect, and is it not a fact that

the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he could not reply in Secret Session but that, in the public interest, he would make a statement?

Mr. Granville: On the point of Order. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the House whether he would consider answering a Private Notice Question on this subject, and he was courteous enough to reply that he would give his consideration to my suggestion. In view of that, am I not entitled to ask one short question to-day?

Mr. Stokes: May I put a further point? The statement made by the Foreign Secretary arose out of yesterday's Debate. Following that Debate, I submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given does not really deal with the points in my proposed Private Notice Question. Would it not have been better to have allowed the Private Notice Question to stand? Should we not have had a much more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman and not have got into this muddle?

Mr. Speaker: The way in which the matter has been done is much the best way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Amendments to the Address

Mr. Maxton: On the general subject of Business. Last week you said, when questions of Business were being raised, that when the Debate on the Address had proceeded further you would be ready to give an indication as to what Amendments, other than those you had already indicated, would be called, and, in particular, what Amendments you would call upon the third Day in the next series of Sittings. Are you now, Sir, in a position to inform the House of your views on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member asked about his Amendment I had not seen the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Both Amendments are on very similar lines, but I have since made a careful study of the matter. The same questions can be raised on both Amendments. I find that a certain number of hon. Members wish to have a


Division on some Amendments and hesitate to vote on that one in the name of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh, but perhaps they would like to do so upon the other Amendment. I therefore propose to call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shettleston.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Seventh Day].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. A. G. Walkden].

Question again proposed,

Orders of the Day — WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION TO CIVILIAN WOMEN.)

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But humbly regret that no mention is made in the Gracious Speech of an intention on the part of the Government to compensate civilian women equally with civilian men for their war injuries.
It is with very great regret that I feel obliged to raise this question here today. I make this proposal with regret for two reasons. First, we are, at last, after years of intense anxiety, celebrating victory. We are at last cheered by better news, and at a moment when we are mutually rejoicing one would not wish to voice criticism of the Government. Secondly, I regret having to move this Amendment because I think it deplorable that after three years of war anyone should have to rise in this House to urge upon the Government the necessity for meting out justice to injured civilian women. I could wish that justice had been meted out to them before pressure was brought to bear upon the Government. The scheme for compensating injured civilians was brought forward by the free will of the Government in September, 1939. We were told


that it was a unique scheme, and indeed this country might have been very proud of inaugurating such a measure. But from the first it was obvious that there were very glaring injustices in the scheme, and for three years we have been bringing this matter to the notice of the Government. The country was not informed on this question when first it was raised. There was very little interest in it, because there was very little knowledge of it. But that is not the case today. To-day, if this question were raised on any public platform, one would get a vote of at least 99 per cent. of the public in favour of the view which I am urging to-day. I can claim that when I move this Amendment I represent the will of the men and women of this country, and I would impress upon the House that this is not a fight for women. It is a fight for human justice and nothing else.
The Government, in opposing the proposal contained in this Amendment, have changed their ground very frequently. First, I was told that it was impossible to grant civilian women equal compensation because the scheme was based on the Workmen's Compensation Acts. I may say that it has no relationship whatever to the Workmen's Compensation Acts. The Minister of Pensions then chose another ground upon which to fight me. He said that the question was indissolubly linked up with the question of equal pay. I shall prove very shortly that the question of remuneration does not enter into this scheme at all. The Minister of Pensions has stood, first on one leg and then on the other, like a cat on hot bricks. I understand that, to-day, he proposes to remove himself from the bricks altogether and that it is the Deputy Prime Minister who is to edify us with a pas seul, I have tried to raise this matter in a constitutional manner on every possible occasion. Deputations representing many millions of women have been taken to the Minister. We have tried every measure. A short time ago I took a deputation to the Deputy Prime Minister from all branches of the women's movement, from all branches of Civil Defence and also representing the general public. The Government, having already considered this subject for over two years, then took eight and a half weeks before they were able to send me any reply, and because the Deputy Prime Minister is to reply to me to-day, I think

it essential that the House should hear his answer, which was the answer of the Government, to the representations made by our deputation. Here is his statement:
The Government have given careful consideration to the views expressed by the deputation which was received by the Minister of Pensions and myself on 9th September, on the question of equal compensation for civilian women for war injuries. The deputation confined its representations to the position of civilian personnel. It would, I think, be agreed that the position of women members of the Forces, where inequality also obtains, cannot be ignored. Moreover, so far as Civil Defence personnel are concerned, in many cases they are entitled, if injured either by enemy action or in the course of their Civil Defence duties, to full pay for a substantial period. This period frequently covers the whole of their absence from duty and equality of compensation when injured could only be secured by the grant to them in such circumstances of the men's rate of pay. Further, in considering the proper relationship generally between the compensation paid to men and to women regard must be had to the broad position in the matter of pay and earnings. In this field an undoubted measure of inequality still exists. The conclusion of His Majesty's Government is therefore, that equal compensation to civilian women cannot be considered in isolation but must be approached from the point of view of the general relationship of remuneration as between men and women. A considerable degree of differentiation still obtains in this respect and so long as this remains the position, the Government do not feel justified in accepting the principle of equality in the matter of compensation.
I think I have a right to claim that that is a complete change of front on the part of the Government, because when the Minister of Pensions first introduced this scheme, in September, 1939, he said:
The injury allowance will be definitely on a flat rate basis. … It will not be in any way determined by means or need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd September, 1939; col. 243, Vol. 351.]
I may have an intelligence very much lower than that of the Government, but when I am told that a scheme will have no relation to means or need, that to me is connected with pay, and I think I have a right to claim, therefore, that in that respect the Government have gone back on their word, which they gave of their own free will, when the scheme was first introduced. As regards the question of the women in the Forces, the scheme which I seek to amend deals only with civilians. It is true that I myself can see no reason why a woman whose hand is blown off on a gun site should have less compensation for her hand than a man whose hand is blown off on a gun site, but that is not the question which is


before the House to-day, and the Government have no right to seek to confuse the issue. Men and women in the Forces are not equally compensated, and I believe I am right in saying that their pensions, in very many instances, are decided by their rank. Therefore, much as I may deplore these inequalities, I am not dealing with them here to-day, and a member of His Majesty's Forces is not a civilian. Therefore the two points have no connection whatever.
I will touch on the second point which is raised, that of members of the Civil Defence. That is a point of real substance. It is perfectly true that members of the Auxiliary Fire Service, the A.R.P. Services, and I believe in some cases the Civil Service, if injured by enemy action, do, for a certain number of weeks, draw full pay. In the case of women who are paid—again very unjustly, but I am not dealing with that here—the unequal rate of pay for exactly the same work, naturally for the period of their disablement, if they are drawing full pay, they are drawing less than the men. But while they are drawing full pay, that sum is very much greater than they could ever receive under this scheme, and until those rates of pay are equalised, as one day they will be, I am perfectly willing, and so are my hon. Friends, to accept that while a woman is drawing full pay, we will not ask for equality. We will only ask for equality when she goes on to the civilian rates for injury and her pay ceases. Therefore I deal with that point to prove to the House that this question has nothing whatever to do with rates of pay. I beg of hon. Members not to allow this to be confused with anything to do with Civil Defence or firewatching, because it embraces the whole of the civil population, from childhood to old age.
These rates of compensation are paid direct from taxation, and women pay the same rates of taxation as men. Indeed, married women are very badly treated under taxation, and I would point out that a certain concession has been made to married women with regard to Income Tax in the last few months. Was that made because it was right? No, it was made because you could not get the women to go into the factories while they found that they lost financially by so doing, and a concession had to be made,

because they were needed. Is it realised by the House that there is only one other pension which is paid direct from public funds without any contribution, that is, the old age pension, and is there one single Member of this House to-day who would dare to get up, either in this House or on any platform outside, and suggest that an old woman should get two-thirds of the old age pension given to a man? If so, let them get up and speak in favour of that now, and face the country on it at a later date. Do hon. Members realise what this means, that two old age pensioners, while in perfect health, in possession of their senses and their limbs, are getting exactly the same income, but should a German bomb injure them—and many old people have been injured by bombs—from that moment they are given an unequal rate? Can any human being justify that—that old age pensioners draw 10s. a week each while in perfect health but the moment they are injured the man, in addition to his 10s. a week, draws, if he is completely disabled—100 per cent. for life—21s., and his income, therefore, because he is ungainfully employed, goes up to 31s., and that a woman who equally with him was drawing 10s., receives an income, if she loses both eyes and both legs, of 24s.? Will the Government answer on what basis they consider that just and on what basis they can link that with pay, and on what basis they justify this differentiation in payments which are made direct from taxation?
There is another point. If a man or a woman is injured or incapacitated under this scheme, they draw compensation, which includes allowances for their children, and they draw exactly the same amount for a little girl as they draw for a little boy. Until the age of 15 years no one has discovered that the needs of a woman child are less than the needs of a man child. Is it not rather an extraordinary thing that there is complete equality under the age of 15 years, and again complete equality over the age of 70 years, but that in the intervening period, when a woman is giving so much to the nation, when she is being conscripted to the factories, conscripted into the Forces, the age when she is rearing children and managing the home, that is the period of time that is chosen to treat her with utter inequality and injustice? Can


the Government defend that to me? I have heard hon. Members in this House on so many occasions, when they recalled their childhood, pay very high tribute to their mothers and to their wives. There is no one in this House, whether or not their own home life has been happy, whether or not they have made of it a success or a failure, who does not know that on the mother and the wife in the home, the stability of this country to a very large extent depends, and certainly the happiness and the wellbeing in the home not only of the husband but of the future generation, upon whom we have already placed a very heavy burden. I ask the House to remember not only that people who earn money come under this scheme, but that people who are not able to earn money are all included. When they consider non-gainfully employed people, I beg the House to remember that a non-gainfully employed man is usually either a pensioner, or someone living on someone else's bounty, or a man of independent means, none of whom has a tremendous need for compensation. But the non-gainfully-employed woman is the housewife, who washes, who sews, who cooks, who cleans, who rears your children, upon whom you have relied for billeting, for salvage, for serving in your British Restaurants, for making your rations scheme work, for economising in fuel, for keeping up the morale of the country in days of difficulty—and there is no one who could say that the working women of Britain have not been a very great asset to this country in her hour of need.
Can anyone justify giving a man of independent means, or a pensioner, because he is not gainfully employed, 21s. a week for life if wholly disabled, and giving that housewife, who has worked and always will work, in similar circumstances only 14s.? Her need is infinitely greater. Indeed, a case might be made that a disabled woman needs a greater rate of remuneration and suffers greater disability than a disabled man. But I do not wish to make that case. I do not wish to appeal to this House on any grounds of sentiment. I have no need to do so. I base my claim on one thing only: I base it on justice. At last we think that we are beginning to see the dawning of possible victory. To-day, all over Europe, hearts that were downcast are beginning to have hope: all over

Europe, people are waiting for the arrival of this country; and our Forces are said to be fighting for freedom, justice, and democracy. You will not be regarded with very great seriousness if you go out to fight for justice in Europe and are unable to give it to the stricken women of your own land.
I know it is no easy matter to vote against the Government. I have no wish to divide the House on this issue, but I intend to do so, because I have tried every other method. I beg Members to remember that this is not a party issue. It is not an issue between the sexes. It is an issue that is confined to justice: it is an issue on which we are fighting for women who are injured, and who are unable to express their own rights. I know I shall be told that this is not the time to divide the House. I have been in this House for over eleven; years, and I have never yet found the time which was the right moment, or the wise moment, to divide the House. There are always people to come and tell you that you will be doing your cause so much harm if you choose that opportunity. I would remind right hon. Gentlemen who sit, some of them luckily, I think, and some of them unfortunately, on the Front Bench, that they sit there, very many of them, because this House after the Norwegian episode had the courage to vote against the Government on a three-line whip. There were only 33 of us in my party who had the guts to vote against the Government on that occasion: it was not an easy thing to do, and doubtless it was a much more serious occasion than this, but 33 of us did it; and has the House or the country regretted it?
I read in my daily paper that the Government, having tried every method to prevent hon Members supporting me to-day—and I may say that some of their methods have not been very creditable; but I excuse that, because their case is so weak—are now going to offer me a Select Committee. It will be very easy for them to say, "Be reasonable. You have been offered a Select Committee; what more can you want?". After eleven years, I know how long it will take a Select Committee to report; and I know the kind of duplicity the Government will sink to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do, unfortunately. If they set up a Select Committee, I am certain they will link this question with the question of equal


pay, and all the repercussions it will have. I am not willing to have it based on that. I ask the House to consider one thing only, the compensation of injured civilians. Let them not allow themselves to be led away by equal pay and by questions of the Civil Defence services. I have been told that it is not logical to ask for this reform now, because the Government have allowed concessions to women firewatchers. The concessions to women firewatchers were not made on this ground; they were made because most women, in addition to their factory work, have a hard day's work to do at home. I beg hon. Members, no matter what they came here prepared to do, to look into their own hearts and their own consciences, to forget party, to forget whether it is to their advantage or to their disadvantage to join me in the Lobby against the Government, for the sake of justice.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is most regrettable at this time, when women are giving such magnificent service to their country, that it should be necessary for the women of this House to ask for some measure of justice for women. I feel that if the Minister of Pensions had listened more carefully and had given more consideration to the deputations which he has received during the last 18 months, this Debate would never have been necessary. We hear that a Select Committee is to be appointed. Perhaps there are new Members here who have never heard this question debated before. I want to assure them that behind the scenes we have done everything in our power to have this matter threshed out. We have taken one deputation after another; we have asked the Minister on countless occasions to reconsider his previous decision. Always he has said that the matter has been fully considered, and that the Government cannot see their way to alter the present Regulations. Therefore, are hon. Members surprised that the hon. Lady said that we cannot place much faith in a Select Committee? It is almost an insult to us. This matter has not come before the House as a question which has not been debated before. The Government have had two years to consider the problem. One paper this morning said the Government now are "stalling," and

another, that they are trying to evade the issue. Of course they are. We women are not simpletons. I have not been here as long as the hon. Lady—I have only been here four years—but I am aware that it is possible to postpone an issue by setting up a committee.
There has been so much discussion on this subject that one would almost think that the women are asking for something of an extravagant nature, that we are, in fact, asking for luxuries. Let us, as sensible men and women, think of what we are really asking. We are simply asking that in the event of permanent injury a woman should have enough to feed, clothe and house herself without having to resort to public assistance. That is all it amounts to. Please do not think that the women are coming here to ask for privileges. Not at all. We are asking for redress, and that a woman should have enough in order to keep herself in comfort in the event of permanent injury. If a man is given this, why should a woman be denied it? I would remind the House of two cases. Think of a woman fire-spotter, a spinster of 40, with dependent relatives, working side by side with a bachelor of 20, living at home with his mother and father. They are both permanently injured by the same bomb. I think the amounts have been increased by 1s. or 2s. now, but only a month or two ago the spinster of 40 would get 28s. and the bachelor of 20 would get 35s. If he was a married man, he would get a family allowance, but no question of family responsibility enters into it. Is it fair? There is only one answer. Let me remind the House of the woman ambulance driver or nurse in a blitz. If she is permanently injured, she will get far less than a man in an underground shelter.
I realise that the House is going to be confused, because this is to be related to pre-war wages. How can you relate these two questions which I have described to anything in the pre-war days? How can you relate the position of these people fighting fire on a roof who are injured by a bomb to any wages which existed in pre-war days? How can you relate the injury of an ambulance driver to anything that the woman might have received in pre-war days? It is as irrational as relating the pension which a soldier gets to pre-war rates of wages. These women


are fighting to defend their country, and if they are injured in defending their country, they should be treated as if they were soldiers righting in defence of their country. I am very surprised to find the Minister of Pensions still concerned with pre-war wages. Surely he remembers that the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women, who also represent the trade unions, sent a strong deputation to see him and asked him in the name of the trade union movement and the organised working women of this country to reconsider his decision. We in this House are always told that the Government, quite rightly, are guided by trade union decisions. Then why, because these trade unionists are women, is their advice totally disregarded?
Yesterday a number of Members of this House, including the Minister of Pensions, attended a demonstration of artificial limbs. I think that we shall never forget that poignant sight. I, with my medical experience, have never before seen 12, 15 or 20 limbless people sitting together. We were thrilled by the bravery and courage of these people, and the Minister of Pensions had the opportunity of seeing these men and women, injured by bombs in the blitz, demonstrating their artificial limbs. He saw a woman warden, not very young, walk down the room by means of her artificial leg. She had lost her leg in the blitz. Did she give up? Not at all. She was wearing her warden's uniform, and she had gone back to the post where she lost her leg. Can the Minister say, after seeing such a sight, that that woman is not as worthy as any of the men with artificial legs? Should not that woman feel that at least in her old age she will have security? But we know that she will not have security and that when peace comes, and perhaps unemployment problems arise, those who have been injured will have lost the chance of getting a job. These women, who have to exist on 27s. or 28s. awarded for permanent injury, blinded, with lost limbs, will know what their end will be—in a back room eking out their miserable existence on public assistance or living with some relatives in order to try and stretch out these few shillings. That is the human side of the problem. How dare the Government try to deceive this House and talk about pre-war rates? All

that these women are asking for is justice.
The hon. Lady quite rightly discussed the question of Income Tax. Have women at any time during this war come forward and said, "Because we are being underpaid, we will refuse to contribute the same rate of Income Tax as men"? Have they at any time withheld their contributions? No, not one woman in the country has ever said, "We are not being pensioned equally and therefore we will not contribute equally." They are, in fact, paying their contributions to the Revenue, thus helping to subsidise the pensions of the men. The failure of the Government to recognise the justice of the women's case makes some of us a little uneasy about the post-war world. If the Government exploit the women when they are needed, we cannot anticipate that the principles expressed in the Atlantic Charter will protect them when they are not needed. We are promised freedom from want. What a hollow mockery to these women who have been maimed and blinded Freedom from want! Are you implementing the promise that you made in the Atlantic Charter? No. This Debate to-day is a reflection upon our country. The attitude of the Government is sufficient to arouse the suspicions of the whole world regarding the honesty of our purpose.
We hear the word "repercussions" bandied about. We are told repeatedly of the repercussions and the equal pay which might be asked for as a result. I go a little further than the hon. Lady who has just spoken, and I say to that, "Why not?" Why should we be afraid of repercussions? Women in the Services and in Civil Defence are being paid at cut prices. Our American Allies are paying their men and women equally, but we believe in cut prices for our women in the Forces. When people tell me that one of the repercussions may be equal pay in the Forces, I say, "Why not?" I have been on gun sites and seen these women working and defying danger. They are being used at cut prices by the Government. If there are repercussions, this is one which I would welcome. After all, what Measure ever introduced has not had repercussions? What reform has ever been introduced which has not had repercussions? If we were all afraid of repercussions, we should maintain the status quo. This is not a threat, but I


know there will be repercussions. They will be repercussions of a kind the Government will not like. There will be unhappy repercussions which we may regret but which will be inevitable, because the Government cannot always impose their will upon the women of the country.
To-day we have a Coalition Government, and this Debate is one of the evils which has arisen out of a Coalition. No party would have dared to have done this alone. But a Coalition must stand together, a Coalition held together by bonds of prejudice and custom, a Coalition which, to-day, on this issue, is completely out of step with public opinion. The Government know full well that they can ignore this appeal. Why? Because the women of this country are not organised. If they were organised as well as the coal-owners or the drink industry [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the catering industry"]—or the catering industry, the Government would be on their toes. The Government know that the people suffering from these injuries are not organised. They know that there is not a crowd of injured women standing in the Lobby, and they take advantage of it. They also know that the women in this House are out of all proportion in numbers to our representation in the country. Therefore the Government feel it is safe to-day to play with this Amendment. I ask the House to consider the whole question simply on its merits and, if Members believe in justice, to vote for the Amendment.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am intervening in this Debate for a brief time in order to make a statement as to the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will be speaking, I hope, later in the Debate and will deal with the matter in more detail. I think everybody will agree that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have made speeches of very great cogency. I could have wished, however, that there had been a little less attribution, apparently, of the lowest motives to the Government, because I should have thought that the points made created such an appeal that everyone would have thought "If these things are not so easy, there must be some reason for it."

Mrs. Tate: Oh!

Mr. Attlee: I listened to the hon. Lady with great interest, but I listened with still more interest to the speeches of the ladies she was good enough to bring before me as a deputation. I think those speeches were extremely well delivered—

Mrs. Tate: I wrote them all.

Mr. Attlee: They were extremely good speeches, but were delivered without that tone of intense bitterness which the hon. Lady showed. This matter does, naturally, arouse great feelings, and it is possible to take particular cases and make a very strong point about them, yet ignore a whole range of other matters which necessarily have to be taken into consideration. The claim here is that where men and women are doing the same service and suffer the same injuries, they should receive the same compensation. That is an appeal which comes very strongly to all of us, and I would like to say that when I looked into this matter and heard the deputation, I was strongly persuaded. I have striven most earnestly to see how this could be accomplished. I want to see this accomplished, but it is not so easy as one would imagine from the speeches we have heard. It has been based on the principle of equal injury, but the trouble is that we have systems in this country that are based on a different principle—the principle in which compensation has reference to the earnings of the persons injured. It is no good in the least saying that these things can be separated. There I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) corrected the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) —

Mrs. Tate: I apologise for interrupting, but is it not the case that in all other schemes where compensation is based on earnings they are contributory schemes, where the contribution of the women is lower than the contribution of men? This scheme is the only one, except old age pensions, which is paid for out of direct taxation.

Mr. Attlee: The workmen's compensation scheme is not a contributory scheme. I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham clearly recognised that it was not possible to deal with this question entirely in isolation. She recognised with great courage, I think, that there were deep questions involved.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think this is relevant to pre-war wage rates.

Mr. Attlee: It is one of the difficulties in dealing with these things that when you do what is a piece of justice to one lot of people, you set up a feeling of injustice in others. I and my colleagues have been trying hard to find out how we can get this matter dealt with on the basis of justice, having regard to the ramifications of the subject. I want to give the House one or two examples as to why I think an inquiry is needed. Let me say at once that this is not a question of an obstructive Treasury refusing a few pounds. I would ask hon. Members not to suggest that the people who are in the Government do not appreciate the points that are made but to recognise the fact that members of the Government have to take responsibility for administration and see where these matters lead.
I want to give one or two examples simply to show the need for examination. Workmen's compensation has been built up on the principle that the compensation has reference to earnings. It is true that at the top level of 35s., the amount is the same for both sexes, but below that there is a differentiation. One may disagree with that system, but it is in existence. Under the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme, instead of putting a top level and then having an assessment with regard to earnings, the principle was adopted of taking for men the highest amount under workmen's compensation, 35s., and taking for women 28s., which on inquiry had been found to be the average level of women's earnings as compared with men's earnings. It must be remembered that compensation for Civil Defence workers is not always a matter of someone being hit by a bomb; it includes accidents while on duty, things which would ordinarily come under workmen's compensation, and there one gets the difference between two people who may be suffering in precisely the same way but who come under separate schemes. This at once introduces a differential factor, and those people get a sense of injustice.
Let me refer to another matter. It is quite true that this injuries amount has been laid down, but in practice the payments are made to men and women of the Civil Defence personnel on the basis of giving a maximum of six months whole-

time pay, 74s. in respect of men and, 52s. in respect of women, because—it may be right or wrong—in fact, the pay of the people in those services is different. This is a method of compensation, because it is in respect of compensation that full wages are given. If one were to adopt the principle as it is put in the Amendment, one would have to say that this compensation must be equal. I know the hon. Lady the Member for Frome said that she was prepared not to press that point; I do not know whether she has authority to speak for every one on that matter; but the terms of the Amendment inevitably cover that question of compensation. The difficulties there can be seen at once. I imagine no one would want to reduce the rate for men, so that the women would have to be brought up to the men's level, and the women would be getting more than their actual pay when at work and the men would be getting the same. I merely point out this as one of the difficulties. But compensation is not given only in the form of an injury allowance. There is a pension for total disability. Pensions for Civil Defence workers and for members of the uniformed Services are the same in the basic grades, but they differ as between men and women. If it is proposed that the Civil Defence services should be in this respect brought up to an equality of the sexes, the same thing would have to be done for the Armed Forces. The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham said, "I do not mind any of these things," but she will agree that those who are responsible for administering the Services must have regard to these things. I think everybody will agree that changes of such magnitude ought not to be made after one day's debate in the House.

Mrs. Tate: After three years.

Mr. Attlee: There is yet another category of persons who come under this—the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme, those who are non-gainfully employed. That comprises a great body of women, including a very large number of those who are doing work of the highest national importance in looking after the homes. They were brought in under the scheme. There was no criterion for the non-gainfully occupied. They were brought in, and there is a difference of rates. I say frankly that it is extremely difficult on any logic to defend that. I


think it is a matter which has to be looked into. But the difficulty is that if you alter just that one piece of the machine, it immediately throws the other pieces out of balance. There, again, I think it would be reasonable to say that the reference here should be to the nature of the injury, because there are not any earnings. The difficulty is that there are the two different bases in this country, one depending on the nature of the injury and the other on earnings. It is not so easy to link them up. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a very large number of people. It is not easy to make changes. The difficulty—I think the hon. Lady realises it—very clearly is that once one departs from that basis, one has to go on to a pure matter of personal injuries, and one throws over the wage consideration. If one goes on the basis of relating this to earnings, one is brought up against the question of the difference in earnings between the two sexes. That is a question one can answer one way or the other, but it will be agreed that it is a very big question to embark upon. It would have very wide results. I have given only a few instances—there are others—to show that this is a complex matter and that it really is not pure "cussedness" on the part of the Government. I went into the matter of how to try to get a solution and I was driven to the fact that one cannot consider this matter in isolation. It is not a matter of the future or of the time before the war, but of the existing conditions under which men and women are remunerated to-day. The Government's proposal is that there should be a Select Committee set up by the House with the following reference:
To examine and report on the effect of the proposal that civilian women should be compensated equally with civilian men for war injuries, on the general principles of compensation, and on levels of remuneration.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: When my right hon. Friend says, "on the general principles of compensation," does he mean the principle of compensation as it applies to-day in this country?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, in the existing circumstances. What we wish is that there should be an examination by a Select Committee of the House which would put the facts before the House.

They would not be asked to form a judgment—that would be a matter for the House—but to present the facts to the House. I do not see any reason why that should take a very great deal of time. It is not the Government's desire to delay this matter, and it is certainly not a question of putting it outside the power of the House, because inevitably the report of the Select Committee would have to be debated by the House and a decision come to by the House.
I have given one or two instances, and my right hon. Friend will give others, showing that this is a complicated matter and that the House ought to have full information I am afraid to use the word "repercussions"—on the ramifications of the question. It is not an easy thing which can be settled straight off on an abstract principle. You have to see its application. You have to see that you do justice and equity right the way round, or you may merely set in train a series of injustices which will be worse, perhaps, than those that you are trying to get rid of. If, as the hon. Lady says, there are no ramifications or repercussions this Select Committee will say so, and we shall be able to go ahead. If there are ramifications and repercussions, the House will have to see how to get over them, and it will make a decision. I suggest that the House would be well advised to accept the Government's suggestion.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I oppose the Amendment and support the suggestion of the Deputy Prime Minister in no spirit of levity but in one of deep conviction that it is a matter about which we should be very cautious before arriving at a conclusion. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and the Seconder. I could not help thinking that there was a note of feminist opposition right through both those speeches. In fact, although I thought my hon. Friend's speech was an admirable rhetorical success, it was a miracle of feminist special pleading. I am not a bit impressed by the Amendment, and I cordially agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister says. There is a very great principle involved, and the lessons not only of economics but of history should be carefully considered before reaching a conclusion. I have received no letters on the matter since the war began, and I do not believe that women


are suffering financially through the war. In past years several eminent lawyers have drawn comparisons between the law as it applies to men and as it applies to women, very much to the advantage of women. That is one of the advantage of women. That is one of the things that I hope women will bear in mind, and I hope they will not run the risk of losing those advantages by asking for too much. Women are better off at present than they have ever been, and an immense debt is being run up, not only by the women, but by the men as well, in consequence of war expenses. This Amendment would have the effect of largely increasing that debt, and that should make us pause before we accept too lightly the arguments which have been put forward. I cannot help thinking that the pure economics of the Amendment are on a par with those of the lady in the play "Claudia," who tore up her Income Tax demand on the plea that she could not afford such luxuries. It is no good mincing one's words in these matters. The hon. Lady certainly would not mince hers. Women already have the power to vote men down and rule the country, but, very wisely as I think, they have not used it. I sincerely hope that they will pause before they start another campaign and will leave government now to men.
I have, since I saw the Amendment on the Paper, been studying some statistics. I learnt from them that in the United States the women receive 70 per cent. of all the estates left by men and 65 per cent. of all the estates left by women, and these percentages left by men and women to women are increasing, and if the transfer of wealth goes on at the present rate, all the wealth in the United States will be in the hands of women during the lifetime of people who are alive to-day. It would be very easy to make similar investigations in this country. That is a significant fact, and it should be borne in mind by the investigation that the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested.
The question has been asked whether civilisation can raise higher the status of its women. What is certain is that civilisation will most certainly decline if a truer and proper balance is not kept. We are running the risk of upsetting that balance. If I may touch upon the historical aspect of it—I know it is very old-fashioned to do so, but it is none the less sincere upon

my part, and I think it none the less true for being old—I realise that the Empress of Rome and two other women, Placidia, Eudoxia, and Pulcheria, who ruled or misruled it, completed the ruin of Rome which decadent men had hastened, and we should bear that in mind. It is so large a question, affecting such a vast population, that I hope we shall pause before accepting the Amendment. The comparison in the Amendment seems to me unfair and illogical and, above all things and most important, really incomplete. I have very strong sympathies with many of the points which have been put forward by the Mover, and, if sympathy solely was my guide, I might agree, but I say very strongly that no such alteration should be arrived at by a decision taken on the Address, and it should not be made without the fullest investigation and the fullest publicity of the economics of the whole question as it affects the whole nation, all the men and women, and also all the further demands on the taxpayer which this demand would at once produce if we were to pass it to day. That is important. When we realise that our debt, instead of being £10,000,000,000, will possibly run up to £20,000,000,000, it is time we thought of where we are to be carried by this rather reckless suggestion of expenditure. I am old-fashioned enough to say that the ultimate and greater responsibility in fire-watching, or in any other duty that has been forced upon us by the exigencies of the war, can never be the same for women or for men, and I hope it will never be the same problem for women as long as there are men about to accept those burdens.
I do not want to be obnoxious or offensive, but I must say that from time to time I am surprised at the attitude which is taken up by the feminist mind. It always gives me the impression that I am at a grave disadvantage in discussing these matters with them, because they appear to me to belong to a section of their sex which seems to be actuated by a mordant discontent with the limitations of their sex. All the arguments in the world will not shift me from the view that there are limitations and that they can never be removed. I cannot support the Amendment, and I hope that we shall not break away from the tradition of not dividing upon the Address. I hope


that those who feel as strongly and sincerely as the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will agree that the proper, democratic way is to accept what the Deputy Prime Minister has put before us, and to insist that the Select Committee be set up forthwith and that it looks into every detail which will be affected by the demand which has been put before us to-day.

Mr. Vernon Harriett: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) into the question of the inheritance of estates in the United States or the behaviour of women in ancient Rome, because I do not believe that the ordinary person in the ordinary town or village in this country who happens to be one of the victims of bombing and who will follow this Debate with great interest will be very interested in those subjects. I would like to come to the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister. I must say with genuine regret that I am very sorry that he made that speech, because it seemed to me to be a complete justification for a policy of never making a reform of any kind in this world. He emphasised that any reform would to some extent dislocate the social structure. Of course, that is true, and the Government are right to take such matters carefully into consideration, but if the Government were really as anxious to meet the demands of public opinion as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested, they have had plenty of time to make a thorough investigation into the repercussions. The speech of the Deputy Prime Minister was an argument for the maintenance of the status quo, and I do not believe the people of the country will accept the argument he made in that sort of spirit.
The justice of the case has been brought out so convincingly by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and the hon Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) that there is nothing more that can be said about that. I would, however, like to make another point that has not been dealt with. One has seen a great deal in the newspapers in the last few days about vague hints that the Government would consider a defeat on this matter almost as a vote of no confidence. That method of trying to dissuade

Members of Parliament from doing their job is very reprehensible and regrettable. We Members of Parliament are ordinary men and women who happen to have been given the job of representing our fellow men in the House of Commons. The Ministers are ordinary Members of Parliament who happen to have been given the job of sitting on the Treasury Bench. It is our duty as Members of Parliament, if public opinion feels that an injustice is being committed, to do everything we can as representatives of the public to see that that injustice is removed. We do not suggest in the newspapers that if the pressure of public opinion continues we will chuck up our particular war job in a fit of petulance. The Government's job on a matter like this should be to take the fullest account of the pressure of public opinion and to reject a demand for reform only if it can be proved that its acceptance in war time would be damaging to the war effort. I do not see that there is any danger of that in this particular case.
If the people of the country are prepared, as I believe they are, to face an increase of taxation in order to right this injustice—and nobody can claim that this differentiation is just—it is the people's responsibility, and it is the Government's job to give way. Instead of that, the Government are being intimidated by the angry growls of that fierce and terrifying gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish they would not be. I regret that almost the last act of the late Leader of the House was to adopt the incredible and unconvincing argument that there are not enough doctors to go round for pension tribunals for soldiers wounded in this war. It means that the Government's refusal on that matter will seep down throughout the country in the form of cynicism and discontent and reach every village where there is some Service man waiting to appeal to the tribunal. The injustice in this issue is much more dangerous and distinct, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, of the very large number of cases that would be affected if there were equality of compensation in this respect. I am afraid that if the Government insist on what I can only consider to be a negative attitude, the people of the country will feel that the Government are behaving with a rather childish petulance rather than face a question of obvious justice. In order


that that may may be avoided I would like to ask the Government whether they can give a guarantee in two respects—(1) Will they ask the Select Committee to report within a certain and very short interval? and (2) Will they give a pledge to the House that on the Report of the Committee the Debate of the House shall be free and that there shall be none of those questions of party whips and of attempting to frighten people by the ghosts of party considerations? There should be a free discussion and a completely free vote of the House. Otherwise, I for one shall certainly vote against the Government in the House to-day, and I hope a great many other hon. Members will do the same.

Sir Robert Young: Perhaps I ought to say, in the first place, that I am speaking to-day only for myself and not in any way for the party to which I belong. I should also like to say that I regret very much the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). I think it was somewhat reactionary, and it reminded me of days long gone by. I rise to support personally the Amendment moved by the hon. lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and seconded by the hon. lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I think both of them eloquently made out their case. A discussion such as we have before us reminds me of the early days of the 1918 Parliament, when the slogans of the last great war promising security, fraternity and social and industrial equality were fresh in the minds and, as it were, re-echoing in the ears of its Members. That Parliament turned out to be a very reactionary Parliament, but it began very well. One of the first things it did was to give a unanimous Second Reading to the Women's Emancipation Bill—that was its Title. Everyone was then prepared to praise, indeed to magnify, the great services rendered by women during the last great war. The Members of the House at that time had every reason to do so, because they had just come from an election in which women had voted for the first time—not all of them, only some.
Whatever the services rendered by women in the last war, they pale into utter insignificance and unimportance in comparison with the services which have been rendered in this war and the things

they are now doing. I remember clearly that the speeches made by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were as progressive, and in some cases sounded more progressive, than the speeches made by hon. Members on this side. I was taken to task by a sound Tory Member not for saying that I was in favour of organising the women in my trade union—he agreed with that—but for saying that I thought women ought to be employed in the engineering industry on the same terms as men, paid the rates for the job and made eligible for my trade union. To him, apparently, equality meant not equal payment for the work done but the right to enter a trade union irrespective of the rates and conditions of employment that might be imposed by employers on their women workers. I am afraid that a somewhat similar opinion remains with many Members to-day, that women should endure the same risks of war as men without sharing or enjoying the same awards. I wish to repeat what I said in 1919, with an addition:
There is no sign as yet, even in spite of the war, that the women who are in industry are going to receive from those who employ them, including the Government, equal pay for equal work.
I wish now to add "or for equal injury and sacrifice." I admit that I rejoice that much improvement has taken place in the economic status of women during the past 20 years, and thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a great improvement in this war compared with the last. As an honourable Friend near me says, there is room for more, but I am admitting satisfaction to the extent that improvement has been made. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from saying that in my opinion the time has now come when the Government should admit, and give practical effect to the admission, that it is the work done and not who does, it, and the sacrifices made or suffered, especially during wartime, that matter, without reference to sex. As has been repeatedly said to-day, justice, apart from all abstract questions of equality, implies acceptance of that principle. In this war we are losing thousands of our young men, and the number may and probably will run into hundreds of thousands before it is ended. Given complete victory, the country will survive that loss and rehabilitate itself,


but were the loss of a similar number of women to take place, with all that it would mean to the family life and childhood of the country, then it is possible that the country would not be able to recuperate and would be lowered to the status of a second-rate Power. In that respect a woman is more valuable than a man. Therefore, when the same risks of physical injury and death are imposed upon women in the interests of national security, acknowledgment should be made without hesitation of the equal value of men and women.
The Amendment is a limited one. There is no attempt to alter, improve or advance the status of women by proposing legislation of a permanent nature in the laws of the country, respecting accidents. The proposal is for equal compensation for injury caused by and due to the war. When the war ends, the causes for this kind of compensation will also end. If there is no renewed and extensive blitzing, the number of war compensation cases will not be very large and will continually decrease. Surely, as the Deputy Prime Minister put it, it is not a question of finance which delays compliance with this suggestion. If it is, some members of the Government are—I will not use the opprobious term "blind guides"—some Members of this House as a result of the war, have swallowed more than one camel, although before the war it was habitual and characteristic of them to strain at a gnat. In so far as this is a camel, it is a diminishing one, and the extra expense can only be trifling, in these days. On the other hand, the expense of delaying compliance with the request will be irritation and dissatisfaction.
I know that some feminists want women to be allowed to work at anything and everything that a man does. They think that at all times women should undertake the duties, responsibilities and risks of men. In my estimation, that attitude is merely a reaction from the fact that down through the ages women have lived under harder and more unjust laws than have men. In these days, when we hear so much about and envisage freedoms covering the whole life of mankind, let us not forget the women. For far too long have we been working slowly up to the recognition of the principle of equality between men and

women. We ought to accept that principle now. Let us reverse the process, admit the principle and then work down from it, debarring women from the equalities which are injurious to themselves and harmful to the State, such as working in mines, which I hope we shall never, even under war conditions, see established in this country.
I would summarise the reasons why I support the Amendment. Woman's life is at least as valuable as man's, and her physical and mental wellbeing are just as important. To set up an inquiry and to investigate a self-evident principle of economic justice would be more likely to increase than to diminish repercussions. I wish the House would remember that the two hon. Ladies have been pleading to-day for equal treatment due to the war. Women's war risks are just as great as the risks run by men, and therefore, with all that it entails, I wish hon. Members would remember the portion of the community for whom we plead. Although by sex women, in ability they have proved themselves men during the period of this war.

Mr. William Brown: I wish to devote myself to five points: (1) the choice of Government speakers on this occasion; (2) the circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman makes to us the recommendation that he does; (3) the merits of what he has to say in support of this proposal; (4) what would be the probable consequences of agreeing to it; and (5) the attitude that this House ought to adopt in regard to that recommendation. It would be ungracious if I were to begin without first saying how much the speech of the Mover of the Amendment pleased me. It was not merely that it was grand argument and, indeed, high oratory, but that also it embodied a degree of political courage which I would like to see emulated in every part of this House. I believe that every time a Member of Parliament puts first what he or she conceives to be right and subordinates the political expediencies of the moment, that Member does something to raise the prestige of this House in the eyes of the country. I would felicitate on my own behalf the Mover of the Amendment for the magnificent and courageous way in which she put it.
Now I come to the first of the five points, which is the choice of the Govern-


ment speakers for to-day. Usually there is competition to speak in this House, but I imagine that on this occasion there has been tremendous competition to avoid speaking, on behalf of the Government. Indeed one can imagine the enthusiasm with which there has been adopted in Government circles the old Civil Service motto, "Passed to you, please" in regard to the job of defending the Government's proposals here to-day. I cannot conceal my scorn that, on this as on every other occasion when some just proposal which is made by a Member of this House and which is not to the liking of His Majesty's Treasury—what just proposal ever is?—and if ever an indefensible position has to be defended, the choice invariably falls upon a Labour representative in the Government, a member of a party whose whole career has consisted in trying to secure elementary rights for human beings and, not least among them, reasonable equality of treatment between men and women. The function which Labour Ministers discharge in the Government is to be the cloak and the alibi of reaction. We have seen that abundantly demonstrated here to-day.
In what circumstances—this is my second question—does the Deputy Prime Minister make to us the proposal that he does? Is there a Member of this House who believes that the proposal for a Select Committee on this subject would have been made except for the Government's profound uncertainty about what would happen in the Division Lobbies on this occasion? This is not a proposal of statesmanship; this is a device of political cowardice. But for the fact that there were 150 names on the Paper in support of this Amendment, but for the great courage of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who, to my joy, announced that she did not intend to be sidetracked on this business by the device of a Select Committee, but for these two things I assert that there would not have been the remotest possibility of the Deputy Prime Minister making the proposal to us that he has made to-day.
What does he say in support of it? I ask the House to notice this, that at no stage in that speech, from beginning to end, did the Deputy Prime Minister question the justice of the proposal made in the Amendment. Indeed, he went so far as to say that he was in sympathy with

the proposal. At no stage did he question its justice. What then was his line of defence? It was this: If you do something on this Amendment about equal compensation then we will be driven, by the inexorable pressure of repercussion, to do something about equal pay in the Civil Service, we will be driven to do something about equalising Workmen's Compensation rates; we might even be driven—oh, appalling prospect—to laying down the principle that a woman who does the same job as a man, and does it as well, shall get as much money for doing it. This vista, this avenue of prospects, grim and dreadful prospects, such as I have mentioned, led the Deputy Prime Minister to say, "Stop this end of the avenue, and do not go down that road." That really was the whole of his case.
I have three observations to make about it. I have had, in another capacity, as a trade union official in the Civil Service; movement, to deal with this problem between men and women over a period of 30 years. To do the men of my organisation justice, they have, from the time they became an organised body, supported the demand for equal pay between men and women. I have never known, in the whole of those 30 years, the Treasury defend their opposition to the claim for equal pay on any other ground than the kind advanced here today. You see the technique? If it is a Civil Service claim for equal pay between men and women, say, "We cannot have that because if we did we might have to have equal compensation for injury as between men and women." When the House of Commons says, "Let us have equality of compensation between men and women," say, "You cannot have that because if that were done there might have to be equal pay between men and women in the Civil Service." So we go on chasing each other round in a circle, never getting anywhere at all. "Repercussions" and "relativity" are two words which will be found written on my heart when I die, after 30 years' experience of His Majesty's Civil Service.
In all my life I have never known the Government fail to defend one injustice by saying "If you have to remedy that, you will have to remedy a lot more." So far from deterring me, that encourages me. If, as a result of getting this


Amendment through—and it is going through—and getting equality for women with men in respect of compensation for injury, I can get equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service, and a greater equalisation of wages between men and women in industry, these are not deterrents; they are incentives for me to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady who represents Frame in this House.
That was the only case the Deputy Prime Minister made. I come to what he proposes we should do. We should have a Select Committee. Select Committees remind me very much of Royal Commissions. I would give the formula for the common property of the House of how to avoid ever doing anything on anything by means of a Select Committee or the Royal Commission. Take a limited number of Tories and set against them a limited number of Liberal and Labour representatives so that they cancel each other out. Next take a representative of the nobility, a representative of the middle class and a working-class woman so that they cancel each other out. To the mixture thus far developed add a couple of Treasury representatives to sit on each side of the chair to make sure that the chairman's pen should not falter in the momentous business of furnishing a draft of the report. Finally, choose your chairman with great care, and you may guarantee automatically that what will emerge from the report of the Committee is massive motionlessness. If I may say so, the Deputy Prime Minister intends that that shall be so. Did hon. Members notice that he commended the proposal to us on the ground that we ought to have a lot more information than we have got, that it would not be the job of the Committee to make recommendations to us but only to provide us with knowledge?
What we need here is not knowledge but will, will to do something. But our Deputy Prime Minister makes it perfectly plain in his speech that the whole weight of the Government in that Committee would be thrown against any changes. I do not care what promises he gives me about how long this Committee is to take, nor do I believe that any Member of this House will be in a better position two months hence, six months hence, or a year hence, to make up his mind on this matter than he is now, because, as the hon. Member for Frome

said, it is not a question of mathematics but of justice. But I can very well believe that, in the interval, first, a good deal of time will elapse; secondly, an attempt will be made to terrify the House by the prospect of the reactions flowing from this matter; and thirdly, when the matter comes here we shall no more get a free vote on it than we are likely to get to-day. I await with great interest the reply of the Minister of Pensions in winding-up for the Government—an appropriate undertaker, if I may say so—to the very pointed query of the hon. Member who asked if, when this matter came before the House, we should have a free vote of the House. I can tell him the answer. The answer is "No."
In these circumstances, I come to my final point: What ought this House to do about this matter? The House should insist on going into the Lobby and affirming its endorsement of this principle of equal compensation for men and women. It ought to do so, even if the fate of the Government were at stake. A man who would vote against the Government only when the Government did not mind, might just as well never vote against the Government at all. As a matter of fact, there will not be an election if we do defeat the Government. There is a mass of vested interests behind the continuance of this Government which it would require more than one adverse majority to shake. But even if that were not so, I would face it. I do not regard the lifetime of the British Commonwealth of Nations as being necessarily coterminous with the lifetime of this Government. I have learned that there is nothing so dangerous in this world as playing for safety; and, recent as my election was, I would hazard my seat again and again rather than do somthing which I regard as being wrong.
As regards the Government, let me say this. In recent weeks it has been a blessing and a delight to turn on the 8 o'clock news in the morning and to hear something different from the melancholy tale of disaster that we have heard for the last three years. But the more our deliverance from the immediate threat of invasion and conquest becomes apparent, the more necessary will it be to hold our people together, to convince them that we are not fighting to maintain the status quo, either in Europe or in Britain. I regard the events of the last week-end as ominous. I interpret them, rightly or


wrongly, as indicating that the Government are moving to the right, whereas, as I know, the country moves to the left. The development of a wide gap between Government and people, in my view, is fraught with the utmost danger to many things; and among them is the maintenance of democratic institutions in Britain. I say to the Government that they will do well, when these issues come along, one by one, in which the obvious sense of justice of the ordinary man and woman is against them, to defer to the sentiment of the people and bring themselves into line with that sentiment. To my hon Friends on the Labour Benches, I would say that I know the difficulties in which they are placed—I often disagree with them, but I understand their position—but one thing that I do not think that any trade union could do, or that I could do personally, or that the Labour party as a political whole could do, and that is to allow its association with the Government to lead it into a position where it is again and again called upon to vote against its deepest convictions. Nothing but harm can come out of that: harm not merely to the Labour movement, but to the whole democratic structure of things in Britain; because if people lose faith in the elected representatives of the workers, our democracy will suffer. I ask my hon. Friends not to be deterred by any threat to the Government from voting as they think this issue requires them to do. If the Government have said their last word to us on this matter, my course is clear. Even if the fate of the Government were at stake, I should go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Lieutenant Butcher: The House has had an opportunity of seeing democracy in action to-day in two different sets of circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement after Question Time showing how quickly things can be done in the interests of the effective prosecution of the war. It is no use my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister talking to us about possible repercussions and ramifications. The repercussions and ramifications are inherent in every decision that is taken; and on issues of great policy the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, quite rightly, took the responsibility of making a decision and of standing by it. Now we see on this

matter my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister adopting the old pre-war practice. I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) into the composition of a Select Committee, but I am bound to say that there is no subject which could be studied in this House on which one could not look up the report of a Select Committee and find that its recommendations have not been implemented. The circumstances of this offer are not genuine. This matter has been under consideration for three years. I would have taken this offer at the beginning, and have taken it with gratitude. I would have taken it at the end of the first year. I would have thought there was a change of heart if the offer had been made by the Deputy Prime Minister in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). But that offer was not made then. Now, what happens? There is an Amendment on the Paper. It is to be forced to a Division. What do the Government do? They offer a Select Committee. We are seeing this National Government, who have put Rommel to flight, fleeing themselves before the glorious army of women, and, as they go, they set the booby trap of a Select Committee. I hope that this House will make itself felt in all constitutional ways, and in all ways that are open to it, to show the Government that this is really not good enough.
I have great respect for the Deputy Prime Minister. I was one of those who, with the hon. Member for Frome, voted against the Chamberlain Government in May, 1940, because I thought that unless we got co-operation from hon. and right hon. Members opposite we should not get this war waged to a satisfactory conclusion. When I see my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister standing at that Box, using one of these pre-war party tricks, I say to him, "You were not invited to join the National Government to put up that kind of defence of this sort of thing." I believe that the Government will do well to withdraw this offer of a Select Committee. They know the feeling of the House, they see the names on the Order Paper, they have Whips in the smoking room, they are scared stiff of a division. Why do they not say, "We will accept the decision of the House? If it costs a lot of money, the people are responsible; and the people have to pay. They can pay


for what they think right." But do not let us have these delaying actions. There is no sense in talking in this country about inconsistencies. We thrive on them; we love them. I know that there is inconsistency in demanding equal compensation. I know that in some forms of employment women are paid at a different rate from men. But in this House we have two lady Members holding office in His Majesty's Government, and I do not believe that their salaries are reduced. When women are compelled by this House to take their place in the factories and in the streets they are entitled to the same compensation as their brothers and fathers.

Miss Lloyd George: It is a very interesting fact that in the course of this Debate only one speech has been made against the Amendment, which was moved with such skill and force by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). At least I say one speech, although I might say of the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister that if he is not with us, he is not against us. But it is a very remarkable thing and reflects accurately the public opinion outside, which, as the hon. Lady has said, is 99 per cent. in favour of the Amendment. In answer to that public demand, expressed with great vigour both inside and outside this House, the right hon. Gentleman offers us a Select Committee to examine into and to report upon the proposal of equal compensation. A Select Committee, as every hon. Member knows, is a favourite device of Governments when they get themselves into a nasty jam. It is the favourite device of procrastinating Governments who do not want to do anything about the matter in question.
As has already been said, this is no new issue. The facts are well known. Three years ago the scheme was brought in. It has been in operation. We have had blitzes, and we have had instances of the inequality of the working of this scheme. After all this experience, inquiry and knowledge, all we are offered is a Select Committee. The time has now—come I would say that the time has passed—when the Government should have the courage to come to a decision one way or another. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are to have an inquiry not only into the question of equal compensation but into

the repercussions and ramifications. One of the matters that he raised was the question of equal pay. Repercussions on that might happen, but that has nothing to do with this particular question of compensation. It is not based on wages. The Minister of Pensions made that clear in the first speech that he ever made upon these Regulations when he said that they were not in fact based upon earnings or means. Therefore, in the words of Gilbert, this "has nothing to do with the case." The Government as a matter of fact have already come to a conclusion upon the policy of equal pay. They have accepted it. I would be very surprised, and I am sure that the women of the country would be very surprised indeed, to hear a pronouncement from the Government that they had altered their minds upon this vital principle. That has been decided. Therefore, I do not know what they are going to inquire into in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to compare two quite different and incomparable things. The compensation of which we are now speaking is a war measure. It is related to war conditions, and how you can inquire into other questions which have no relation to them, I cannot really understand. It is obvious, as I have said, that they are trying to sidetrack the whole issue.
I would like to get back to the real issue which is before the House at the moment. No one would get up in this House and attempt to defend these wide discrepancies in the rates that are paid under this compensation. The Minister of Pensions has told us that the rates are not based upon sex discrimination. He said that it is not a question of wages; it is a flat rate, and you get the same compensation whether you earn £3 or £5 or £8, unless you are a woman. That is what the right hon. Gentleman calls no sex discrimination. You do not pay more compensation because a man is the breadwinner of the family, because, as the hon. Lady has pointed out, dependants are not included in this scheme. I maintain that it cannot even be based on the need of the individual. I have never heard that there are special rents for women or that fuel costs them less or that there are special prices for food for women. It may be said that men eat more than women. I do not think that that is the case. You can only judge it upon the individual. In that case the


Government have decided that in the matter of rationed foods there should be no differences between men and women. I cannot see, therefore, how you can possibly base this discrimination upon the actual need of the individual. The Minister of Pensions said in an earlier Debate—I think it was in May, 1941, when we last had the opportunity of properly discussing this matter in all its aspects—that if circumstances changed, and if it should be shown to him that the figure of compensation was not a fair one, he would always be prepared to consider the matter and recommend to the Government without any Select Committee that a change be made.
The right hon. Gentleman made that speech 18 months ago, and a very great change has taken place since then which strengthens the case of the women. An unprecedented step has been taken. For the first time in history women have been directed to employment in factories all over the country. They are taken, in many cases, from safe areas to vulnerable areas; they are directed by Government order into the very target area itself. That constitutes a very great change. Does not that fact in itself demand that there should be a revision of these scales? If a factory is, blitzed and a man and woman working side by side are both injured, I cannot see how it could be justified that the man should receive 35s. and the woman only 28s. They take the same risks. The other great change that has been made is that the compulsory fire-watching Order has altered the situation very materially. These things make the Minister's figures doubly unjust and they definitely qualify the undertaking he gave, that, if circumstances materially changed, he would be prepared to recommend that the figures be revised. I would like to base my claim upon the much broader basis that women have played in these intervening 18 months in the war effort.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) spoke of the economics of the case. He said that you would be increasing the burden of the debt. We owe a very great debt to the women of this country. But you cannot calculate their service on an actuarial basis. The Minister of Labour said the other day in a very eloquent tribute which he paid to the women

of this country that if they had not come forward there would have been a great gap. Women are very proud to have been able to fill the gap; they are glad to have had every opportunity to serve their country; they are very glad to take equal risks with men. As I have said, very remarkable figures have been produced lately, showing the extent to which the war effort in this country depends upon woman-power. Take, for instance, the iron and steel industry. Since the beginning of the war the number of women employed in this industry has been trebled. The percentage of women in Royal Ordnance factories is now 60, and even in engineering trades, where scope for them up to now has been considerably restricted, the proportion of women employed is between one-quarter and one-fifth. On the four main line railways 50,000 women are employed, and nearly 11,000 are employed by the London Passenger Transport Board. These women are working long hours, far too long in too many cases. When their work is over they go back to their houses and often have to do their housework. Now on top of that they have to do fire watching while somehow or other they have to fit in their shopping. These are the women to whom we are to say, "We are very grateful for what you are doing, but we must have a Select Committee to find out if your life is worth as much as a man's." That is the answer which this House and the Government are to give to the magnificent effort which women have been making and are making to-day.
I am not surprised that the Minister of Labour is not replying to this Debate. He has been responsible for mobilising the women of this country, and he knows better than anyone on the Treasury Bench how magnificent has been their response. Indeed, he has said so on many occasions. I would like to make one last point, and it is about this question of dividing on this issue. A great many Members have put their names to this Amendment on the Order Paper. It has been said that some of these signatories may feel unable to carry their support into the Division Lobby because this is an Amendment to the Address, is a special occasion and has special significance. I was very interested the other day to find out what happened last year to an Amendment which was moved by


the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) in connection with Regulation 18B. Members who supported that Amendment took the same view as some hon. Members do to-day, namely, that although one might speak with great force and vigour, one should not carry the opposition into the Lobby because it is an Amendment to the Address. What view did the Government spokesman take about that then? The Government spokesman on that occasion was the Home Secretary, and this is what he said:
I would now urge upon the House that if there is material dissatisfaction with this Regulation … It would be better for the House to divide now in order that the country may know where we all stand on this vital issue, which I regard as one of security. Moreover, it is not right that I should be left in any uncertainty as to the opinion of the House.
The House may observe that the Home Secretary on this very important occasion said nothing at all about the propriety of hon. Members voting against the Government in the Debate on the Address. Indeed, it was the very reverse; he was anxious for a Division; he urged Members to carry the matter to a Division and went on to say:
It is sometimes difficult in these Debates without divisions, and from which the old party system is absent for the time being, for me or other Ministers or the country to be sure where the House stands on a particular matter. I therefore say that if there is a material challenge, it would be better to divide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; col. 861, Vol. 376.]
There the Home Secretary was encouraging, almost inciting—if that is not an improper word to use about the Home Secretary—the House to divide on the Address. Therefore, whatever the Whips may say, I do urge Members to follow in this case not their advice but the advice of the Home Secretary, whose authority has grown in the last two or three days since he became a member of the War Cabinet. I urge them to follow his advice, so that the country and the House may know where they stand on this vital issue.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I have been very disappointed not to hear any answer or justification as to why women injured in an air raid should receive less compensation than men. I do not think there have been any speeches in answer to the speech made

by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate): or against the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for the Isle of Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I hoped that there might be a very good reason why women should not be compensated on the same level as men who are injured in air raids. It is quite true that I myself could not see what the reason might be. I am very innocent in these matters. I have been in the House only 18 years, but I have generally found that Governments in the past have been able to tell us why we should do this or that. But I must frankly confess that I was very disappointed with the Deputy Prime Minister's speech to-day. He has offered us a Committee. Well, as has been said before, we all know how these Committees work. I do not take the view that this Committee would do no good. I think it might do a little good. I can quite see that when the Committee reports matters might go ahead a bit, but whatever the Committee reports, I do not think it can report in time to help the women who have been injured by enemy action in this country during this war. It is perhaps because I am frightened that the Committee cannot possibly act in time that I cannot feel that the proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister can be of much benefit to women who have been injured by enemy action.
The inquiry, I understand, is to go into repercussions which the giving of equal compensation may have and all the ramifications of the subject. When an inquiry has to do this, we can be pretty sure that it will be a very long inquiry indeed. I know considerable fear has been expressed by people who are in favour of equal compensation that if we have equal compensation it will eventually lead to equal wages. I do not mind that. I am not opposed to women getting the same wages as men provided they are doing the same work; but if I were a woman I think I would be opposed to it. As a man I am not opposed to it because it is very important after the war that men who have families to support should have a chance of getting back into industry, and I consider that, on the whole, the best way of getting men back into industry is to give equal wages to women. Therefore, I am not frightened by that proposition, but I feel that if there is an inquiry, and


if in that inquiry every sort of repercussion that may arise is gone into, the very matter about which we are anxious may be shelved and forgotten. I feel that, as a result of such an inquiry, we should be in very great danger of not getting a solution of the problem before the war was over. In fact, if I were a betting man I would lay a bet with the Deputy Prime Minister that the war will be over before the Select Committee reports. It may be that I am a greater optimist about the course of the war than my right hon. Friend is.
I cannot see that this problem is bound up with wages. I know that hon. Members of the Labour party think it is; I know they think that, because of the Workmen's Compensation Act and so on, the matter is bound up with wages, and probably that is why they are so silent in this Debate. I am rather surprised that the Labour party have not given more vocal support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Frome. But is this matter bound up with wages? I do not think it is, for the reason that many of the people who are injured are not gainfully employed. Surely, the whole problem is quite a different one. Like many others, I had the honour of going to the East End of London in the blitz and doing what one could. I do not think that anybody who saw the women then could really sit by to-day and refuse to go into the Division Lobby. I remember that at the time when the first lull had come I said to an old lady who had had her house bombed, "You must be very pleased you are not being bombed now." She replied, "No, I wish they were bombing us; when they are not bombing us, I feel they are bombing munition factories." That is a true story of the East End of London. Women who show that spirit surely deserve all the support that the House can give them. We have not had a single answer from the Front Bench as to why women should not be compensated for war injuries on the same basis as men.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) referred to voting. I do not quite agree with him in what he said. If one is a loyal supporter of the Government, one does not lightly go into the Division Lobby against the Government. We are fortunate in having in the new Leader of the House one whom we all admire for his great moral qualities; we know he

is the last man who would ever reprove anybody for going into the Division Lobby to vote as his conscience dictates, for in the past my right hon. Friend has himself shown such courage on questions of conscience. The hon. Lady the Member for Frome made a magnificent speech, but as far as I know she was a little inaccurate perhaps and indulged in a little exaggeration when she spoke about the Whips putting on pressure and being up to their old tricks. In all fairness to the Whips' Office, I can say that, as far as I know, they have exerted no pressure in this matter and have behaved in a perfect manner, not using the party machine in any way in which it should not be used. In conclusion, I want to ask whoever is to reply to the Debate whether the Government will not reconsider their decision and realise that this is a matter of compensation and not of wages, and that the longer a decision is put off the greater will be the injustice done to the brave women of this country who have suffered from war injuries. I cannot see why a decision cannot be come to now; I ask the Government to give justice to these women.

Commander King-Hall: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes while I make one or two observations on the Amendment, which I wish to support. I shall not go into details in order to make a case on the basis of the part which the women of the country have played in the war. Many hon. Members have already done that, and it is, indeed, well known to everybody that, even by comparison with all that women did in the last war, they have in this war excelled themselves in their contribution to the war effort. I am well aware that in the job which I hold at present in connection with fuel economy my task would be hopeless if it were not for the tremendous effort at fuel economy which the women are making at the present time. That is only one small part of their whole war effort. I believe I am right in saying that the last thing the women of the country wish is that this matter should be decided on the basis of making a cash payment for war services. That is not the attitude which they take towards their war duties, and even if they do not get to-day the justice to which they are entitled, it will not make the slightest difference to the effort which they are putting into the war.
The Deputy Prime Minister has invited the House to accept the compromise of setting up a Select Committee to investigate this matter and report to the House on the facts and the repercussions, as he described it, which the acceptance of this Amendment would entail With the greatest respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, I suggest that that is a misunderstanding of the functions of the House at the present time. It is not our business to wait for a report which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) said, may take a very long time to come, and which will certainly deal with other matters than the question of compensation; it is not our business to wait to get the facts and then get ourselves mixed up in a mass of administrative details and complications. The business of the House, I submit, is to decide two things. The first is whether the principle is right or wrong. I am absolutely convinced that the principle of equal compensation is right. The second thing which I suggest hon. Members should ask themselves is this. If the principle is right, is it reasonable to suppose that in the circumstances of these times it can be applied in practice? For example, is it hopelessly impracticable at present from a financial point of view? The broad question one has to ask oneself is whether the principle, although it may be right, is palpably absurd at the present time. I do not think it requires the labours of a Select Committee to deal with that aspect. I am certain it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to apply this principle at the present time. If, therefore, we feel that the principle is right, and if anyone whose name is down to support the Amendment feels that it is not beyond our financial capacity and that the details are not impracticable, it is our plain duty to do as I shall do if the matter is carried to a Division, and vote in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Viant: I have listened very attentively to the Debate as it has proceeded, and up to now no one has been able to answer the strong case made out by the Mover. I think the House in general is convinced that the claim that is made is one of justice. I remember that when these proposals were first introduced in September, 1939, a few Members were present, when a number of

Orders were going through, who ventured to raise the point that is being discussed now. The spokesman for the Government informed us that the basis had been fixed along the general lines of the procedure adopted in regard to the wages paid in industry in general. The point was raised concerning the position of the wife of a married man, and the injustice in that regard was also made clear in the speeches that were made. Other opportunities have offered themselves for raising the point again and again, and deputations have waited upon the Government, but we have advanced little or no further as far as the application of the principle is concerned. The proposals offered to the House to-day do not take us any further in that respect. Had the Deputy Prime Minister been in a position to inform us that the Government, having been persuaded of the justice of the claim, were prepared to make this concession in regard to compensation to civilians injured as the result of enemy action, and proposed that a Select Committee should consider its ramifications and the general application of the principle to other aspects of life, I feel sure that the House would have been prepared to accept it and thank the Government for the concession.
I can appreciate the apprehensions of the Government at this stage in regard to applying the principle in general, but all that we are asking for is that this principle shall be conceded in regard to civilian injuries arising from enemy action, and that at this stage it should go no further. I do not suppose there is a Member present who has any desire to vote against the Government, but they are none the less put in a most, unhappy position in this respect, that they want to do justice but they are being denied the opportunity of doing justice by virtue of the offer that has been made by the Government. I hope the last word has not been said. Is it not possible even at this late stage for a concession to be made on this one issue alone, and then allow a Select Committee to explore the application of the principle in other walks of life? If that could be done, we should still retain the unity of the House, and, what is more important, we should allay the uneasiness and apprehension which prevail throughout the country, more especially among the womenfolk, as to the injustice that is being meted out to them when they are injured as the result of enemy action. I


should like to see the House cast its vote on the justice of this claim and leave the question of expediency aside. We are engaged in a war for justice. Here is an opportunity for a small concession being made by way of meting out justice to some who have already smarted and suffered as the result of injustice. It will help us to retain the integrity of the House and allay the apprehension that obtained throughout the country and, what is more important, keep the unity of the Government and Parliament.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I welcome the decision of the Government to set up a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. I think it is a wise decision, but I want to ask for an assurance that the Committee will also consider the disability pension paid to members of the W.A.A.F., the W.R.N.S. and the A.T.S. I have in my hospital, where serious eye cases go, a case of an A.T.S. girl who was blinded while driving in a London blitz, and several munition girls all totally blinded. They get 27s. 6d. a week. I do not think that is enough, and it seems to me impossible to consider the case of the munition girl without considering also the case of the Service girl. I ask for an assurance that the Select Committee will consider both kinds of cases.

Mr. Reakes: I am disappointed to find that the one offer that has been made is that this important question is to be shelved, because I claim that that will be the position if we do not vote for the Amendment. In my opinion to refer this to a Select Committee will mean the death of the Amendment. The question of the equality of the sexes and equal pay is a very vexed one, and it would be a great mistake to allow this war-time problem to be shelved along with other questions upon which unanimity may never be achieved, because there are even sections of the trade unions which are dead against equal pay for women. I want to know why it is necessary not to have a vote to-day on giving equal compensation to women who are called upon to share the same dangers as we air-raid wardens in air attack. Machinery has been set up to deal with damage to war property. Why put human life on a different basis?
I have never known any question in my 25 years of political life that was so easy to defend as this question of equal

compensation. It take only two minutes for a man or woman to make up his or her mind to vote for it. It is only where there is the curse of party politics that we get the question dealt with in this manner, with the result that Members of the House who are fettered to the party machine and, unlike me, are not free to vote according to their consciences, do not know what to do. They are being taunted, as I was taunted by somebody who did not know I was independent, that if I voted for the Amendment I would be embarrassing the Government. I do not care twopence about embarrassing the Government. I would rather embarrass the Government who are taking this line of action than embarrass the women of England who have done such wonderful service in the war and who are being called upon to shoulder the dangers of war. The most honourable thing would be to have a free vote of the House. As there were 130 signatures of men and women of all political persuasions to this Amendment, it indicates that there is a consensus of opinion that equality should be granted now. It is entirely a war problem, and once it is granted it need not be taken as a precedent for fogging the issues that may come up after the war with regard to equalisation of pay. I appeal to hon. members to throw off party shackles, to put justice before party, and to do something more than hand the women of this country bouquets of dead flowers.
I speak for the women in one of the worst blitzed areas of the country. I have seen them doing heroic work night after night. They cannot understand, when they are expected at election times to be clerical slaves to help to get a Tory into this House, why, when they are called upon to share the dangers of men, there should be this differentiation. They cannot understand it, and I have made no attempt to explain it to them, except to say that I am free to vote according to my conscience—as far as this matter is concerned; because I have mental reservations on other questions. It is hopeless for me to appeal to the Government benches, because their record of reaction and criminal complacency which have brought the war into a fourth year makes it a waste of time to do so. I appeal, however, to the Members on my right, who for many years have been


supposed to be the champions of the people, without sex distinction, to live up to their past traditions and to redeem some of the pledges they have made on soap boxes and other places during elections. I appeal to them to break away from the tie that exists, which is more artificial than real, between the Government benches and themselves. There is something more than unity at any price. I believe in putting country before party. On this occasion let us put justice before party and vote according to our consciences.

Sir Herbert Williams: I apologise for seeking to take part in a Debate the bulk of which I have not listened to, owing to circumstances outside my control. I have persistently declined to associate myself with the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), and in reply to the considerable numbers of letters I have had on this subject, I have declined to look on this question as a matter of equality between the sexes. What is more serious in the Personal Injuries Scheme is the total inadequacy of all the benefits. I hope, therefore, that if a Select Committee is appointed, it will be empowered to examine into the whole problem. Yesterday the Minister of Pensions answered a Question which I asked about the Personal Injuries Act, which was introduced as a Bill on 2nd September, 1939. By special Order the Presentation and Second Reading took place on the same day. It was one of 20 or 30 Bills that we passed through almost without Debate. There was a little Debate on the Personal Injuries Bill, but none of that urgent legislation had the proper consideration which Bills normally receive. When we arrived here on 2nd September there was outside the Vote Office a pile of Bills to be introduced and passed through all their stages on that day in both Houses and to receive the Royal Assent. It happened that the Personal Injuries Bill had consideration on two days, partly because there was some Debate on the Second Reading and, I think, on the Committee stage. Therefore it took 36 hours to become law instead of the customary six or seven hours which was the practice with the other Bills. Under that Act the scheme was formulated.
I want hon. Members to realise that that Act contained a most iniquitous principle. It deprived the citizen of his rights at Common Law for compensation. Instead, a scale of compensation was submitted which is grossly inadequate for most of the people who have claims for compensation. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, because in these matters the decision is that of the Cabinet and the Treasury. In workmen's compensation, compensation is related to wages. In this scheme there is no such relationship. There is a complete denial of that principle. The man who is earning £6 a week gets the same compensation as the man who is earning £3. If he is killed the widow gets the same compensation. Having regard to the fact that people incur liabilities which have some relation to their incomes, there is not equal justice in compensation under this scheme. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Frome that I will not support equality between the sexes because it would still result in gross injustices. What I want is a scheme which will result in some fairer measure of compensation.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member has taken up the line that compensation should be related entirely to earnings. That is a consistent line, but may I ask him how he would compensate the housewife who while she does exceedingly valuable work, gets no wage whatever?

Sir H. Williams: I agree. For a person without earned income there will have to be constructed some artificial scale.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's previous argument with regard to relating compensation to income, the housewife who has no income would receive nothing.

Sir H. Williams: Quite properly the hon. Member for Frome raised the issue that there will be a certain number of people entitled to compensation to whom the earned income test will not apply, and I recognise that, but the fact that there is a difficulty is no reason why one should not endeavour to apply justice as widely as possible. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is carried, all that will happen will be the payment of 32s. a week in the case of death—well, I have looked at the


document, and I cannot carry all the figures in my head, but it would still be a totally inadequate payment, and the bulk of the injustices would remain, and I think it is a good idea to submit the matter to a Select Committee so that the whole scheme under the Personal Injuries Act can be looked into in the light of the events of the present day.
I do not know what the experience of other hon. Members has been, but I have had only one complaint in respect of this scheme of compensation. In that case my right hon. Friend was able to do something by stretching the law a little, I think. It was a case in which out of the father, mother, children and nephews and nieces in a family, five, I think, had been killed. The father, the head of the family, was killed, and his wife lost a leg, and because she was receiving compensation as a widow she was denied additional compensation in respect of her own personal injury. That seems to be perfectly absurd. The one allowance is compensation in respect of the loss of the breadwinner and the other is compensation for personal injury. Under the scheme as it stands there can be no double compensation. I want that problem looked into. It is a curious thing that that is the only complaint which I have had since this scheme has been in operation, because, after all, Croydon was the first place to be badly bombed. We were bombed every night for three months and we had a large number of casualties. Though I do not know the actual number of fatal casualties, it was something in the neighbourhood of 1,000, I believe, and yet I have had only one complaint. Let that be put on record. It is also true that where there is a fatal casualty the compensation scheme as it now operates favours the widow as compared with the widower. In respect of all fatal cases more money is paid to women than to men, a fact which ought to be realised.

Mrs. Tate: Surely the hon. Member is not using that as an argument that women gain under the scheme? A man who is injured or killed has his dependants provided for by the State. A woman who is killed by enemy action has no compensation for an invalid husband who may be entirely dependent upon her. Her children are provided for, but the invalid husband is not. You cannot argue that that is a gain for women; it is a gain for men.

Sir H. Williams: All I was saying was that in fact more money is paid to widows' than is paid to widowers. More money is paid out to women where somebody dies than is paid out to men. I am only stating the fact. It is a fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Member explain that a little more fully?

Sir H. Williams: When the other night another hon. Member and I were doing our little turn of fire watching, I spent some time in the Library studying first of all the original scheme and then the supplementary scheme. It was a very long document, and I am not going to say that I carry all the details in my mind, but it is true, and I think the Minister of Pensions will bear me out, that where a woman is killed the compensation her husband may receive is less than she would receive if he had been killed. Therefore, in fact, where there is a fatality more money is paid to women than to men. [Interruption.]—Precisely, but it is the woman who gets the money.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not the hon. Member agree that during the whole of the woman's life she has not legally obtained a penny?

Sir H. Williams: I do not know whether she has legally obtained a penny or not. If she has earned money, it is her own, and under the Married Women's Property Act she can stick to it, and in fact women do stick to it, and to a great deal else besides—at least, that is my domestic experience, and I do not think my wife would object to my making that statement. But I am merely stating a fact, and it is no good denying what is a fact. I hope the Government will give a firm undertaking that whatever happens to-day they will appoint this Select Committee and that it shall have a free run over the whole of the Personal Injuries Scheme.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I intervene briefly in this Debate in order to place before the Government one or two points of view which have not been brought forward even during the long period on which representations have been made to them on this subject. Many of us on this side of the House would be quite agreeable to a committee being


appointed and to its investigating the question that has been before us to-day, that question alone, if the Government stated, first, that they accepted the principle of equal payment or equal compensation and, secondly, if they would set a specific period to the inquiry. Hon. Members are always very suspicious of committees of inquiry set up by this House. We have had many bitter experiences of inquiries, like that into old age pensions, running on for years. No matter how much confidence we may have in a Government or how much we may recognise their difficulties, we feel that an inquiry is something that is resorted to after Governments have come to the conclusion that they cannot face the House on some issue and desire that there should be delay for a time. Why an inquiry into this question? Do not the Government fully understand the case which has been submitted to them during the past three years? Representations have been made to the Government by many hon. Members and by various organisations, the Minister of Pensions has gone thoroughly into the question time and again, and the Cabinet must have discussed it in the light of those representations. Why is it that now, when so many women are suffering permanent injuries, the Government decide that it is a question for a Select Committee? The Prime Minister has often said to Members, "Take your courage in your hands and vote for what you think is just and right," and I submit that it is only right that the Government should have come forward with a definite acceptance or refusal of the proposal which has been put forward after so many years of representation.
This question must be looked at in an entirely unbiased way by men and women. We must ask ourselves what it means to a man and to a woman to suffer permanent injury that will mar them physically for life. Speaking as a man, I say that permanent physical injury or disfigurement means very much more to a woman than to a man under the conditions in which we live our lives. We have often expressed the opinion that the work done by the housewife who is carrying on family life and home duties is most important to the welfare of the nation. Should she be injured seriously or disfigured so that life becomes a burden to her, she may have to be looked after by other members of the family. Why

should she not receive proper compensation? If she is elderly, she might in a few years be receiving the old age pension; in that case she will be receiving equal compensation with men in respect of old age. Why should she receive less than men because of injury sustained during her war activities?
What is the outlook for a young woman under our present system of society? Young women look forward to marriage, a happy family life and to the rearing of children in the comfort of an ordinary home. What chance have the young women in the—if I may use the term—marriage market of the future, if they are disfigured or physically disabled? We may read romantic and sentimental stories about these things, but there is no doubt that the physical attractions of the girls play a very important part in their obtaining of husbands. What chance have young women in this respect if physical disability keeps them from enjoying their life, say, in the dance hall or in the various ways in which young women enjoy themselves? They are barred definitely. A great hindrance has been placed in their way of being selected by the men of the future to look after their homes and children.
I come to a very important aspect of this matter. Will the Minister state clearly in his reply on what basis he refuses this appeal of Members of the House of Commons, and whether it is with regard to cost? I would like to know whether the principle is refused because of the question of cost to the nation.

The Minister of Pensions(Sir Walter Womersley): I can give an answer to that straight away. It is "No, Sir."

Mr. Davidson: I am very pleased to hear that answer. On any other aspect of the whole of this question the Government have no case. After successive appeals to the Government, repeatedly the only case which they have submitted is that of cost to the nation, with regard to old age pensions and many other appeals that hon. Members have made for improvements in the condition of the people. The Government have always placed the question of the cost to the nation in the forefront. Now that that question has been eliminated, we are faced with the one question: Is it just or right, in view of all that women have to suffer because of disabilities incurred in their activities


in assisting the war, or at home, that they should receive less than men who have suffered the same injury yet have a much brighter outlook in the future?
Weighing the whole position up, one comes to the conclusion that the case put forward for equal compensation for women cannot, in the name of justice, be refused by the Government. I would ask the Minister of Pensions whether the Government will forward to the proposed committee of inquiry a statement that they accept the principle of equal compensation, and, secondly, whether the Government will specify a period of one month for the inquiry, so that we may obtain a report within a reasonable time? If hon. Members object that one month is too short, I submit that committees of inquiry in this House have discussed and settled much more important matters and many graver issues in a matter of days, or of one week, and that it is therefore not impossible but quite feasible that this question should be settled in one month. I ask the Minister whether he will give those guarantees to the House.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I intervene for a few moments in this interesting Debate to suggest that it may be possible for the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment to see her way not to divide the House upon a Motion in relation to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. We all agree that the admirable case she presented to us is almost unchallengeable. The work accomplished during the war by the women of the country is above ordinary words of appreciation. In looking back upon the records of the troubles we have had in the war and recalling what some of our splendid women have done, I feel that we cannot express too much our appreciation of the services they have rendered. In cases of most exasperating difficulty, not only sisters but nurses have been of unqualified value during moments of crisis. In a hospital with which I am associated is a matron whose service has been of outstanding value not only because of her own spirit of sacrifice, but because she has made other people realise the importance of standing to their stations in moments of emergency.
We are all, I think, in full sympathy with the object of this Amendment, but I feel it would be of disastrous consequence in the conflict which we are at present

waging against the enemy, if we divided in this House on an Amendment to the Address in these critical and difficult days. I do not think from the speeches we have heard to-day that the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment has anything to complain about regarding the sympathy of the House with the object she has in view. I could never understand why the life of a woman should be valued less than the life of a man. I could never understand why a woman who has stood up to the raids through which we have passed in recent times in this country, should be less valuable than a man who has been placed in similar circumstances and has suffered similar attacks. I feel very strongly that the Select Committee which the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested would find means by which equal compensation could be given to women in the case of injury inflicted upon them in the course of this conflict. I think in this House to-day we have had a full expression of sympathy with what women are doing in this war but I feel at the same time, in view of the concentration of thought all over the world on what is happening in this House, we ought not to divide the House on a question of this kind.
I hope the hon. Lady will accept the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister that the question she has raised, which is of profound importance to the whole of our social structure in the future, will be examined sympathetically and helpfully. I suggest that this matter might safely be left in the hands of a Select Committee such as the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested and that we could accept the conclusion at which such a Committee would arrive. I hope that it will meet the case of the hon. Lady, and that her adequate, able and touching speech will receive that measure of sympathy and support to which it is entitled. We cannot in his House endorse too strongly the work which women have done in this war—including nursing sisters in all our hospitals, and those who are looking after the welfare of people in industry. All have been rendering service of incalculable value. I sincerely hope it will become an accepted principle of this House, and that the Minister of Pensions will realise its importance, that there can be no differentiation between the value attached to the claims of a woman for compensation and that


attached to the claims of the man in cases of disability caused by enemy attack in this war.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the rather contradictory character of the hon. Member's speech, in which he praised the speech of the hon. Lady and said that he recognises this is a most important matter in national life, may I ask is he himself in favour of the Government stating that they accept the principle for which he speaks when he says that the matter should be transferred to a Select Committee?

Sir P. Hannon: I thought I had just said that I am entirely in favour of the Government accepting the principle of equal compensation for women and for men who are injured. I recognise the position in which the Minister of Pensions is placed, and I suggest the House ought to wait for the decision of the Select Committee which I hope will not be long, and that we should await, with confidence and hope, the bringing into practical effect of the principle when the Select Committee has made its report.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is 18 months since this question was last raised in public Debate in this House. The interest at that time was comparatively small. Only 30 Members supported the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) in the Division Lobby. My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House supported me in my appeal to the Government on that occasion to do something, but the Government had their way by 80 votes to 30. They refused the appeal which I made, and in which I was supported by the hon. Gentleman, and they claimed thereafter that the supporters of the proposal had been defeated and that they had no need to take any further action. Since that time very great interest has been shown in this question, not only in this House but throughout the country. In fact, there is a widespread feeling, not confined to women, as has been exhibited inside this House. The Amendment was originally put down in the name of over 100 Members of Parliament, and they included only a very few Members of my party, who, in fact, by a very large majority support the claim, and have asked me to voice their views in this Debate.
I believe that on the intrinsic merits of the proposal, as an isolated question, there would be a very large consensus of opinion in this House—almost unanimous—in favour of granting what is suggested in the Amendment. This is not a question of whether women do equal work with men on which I take very strongly a certain point of view though it may not be the opinion of everyone here. This is not a question of whether they should receive an equal money payment either for equal work or for a day's work, and it is not a question of compensation for the loss of their jobs. It is not a question of meeting the responsibilities of women with regard to a family—the bogy which prevents women from getting equal pay in the Civil Service. This is a matter of paying a smaller sum to women just because they are women. That is to say, in a purely human question of the value of a woman to herself and to the State, the Government have persisted in paying a smaller sum of compensation to a woman than to a man.
It may be argued, though some of us would disagree, that the economic output of a woman is less than that of a man. It may be argued it has a less value to the State, but it surely cannot be argued that the value of a woman, as a woman, to the State is less than that of a man, because that brings in questions other than those of an economic and industrial character. I do not know where we should be if the women of this country ceased to exist. The race would perish. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I know that statisticians in thinking of the future of the race disregard us poor men altogether. Their criterion is whether the women of one generation are giving birth to, and nurturing and bringing to adulthood, as many women of the following generation as there have been in the generation before. Therefore, I suggest it ought to be beyond question that the value of a woman to the State is every bit as great as that of a man. It cannot be argued, on the other hand, that the needs of the woman are less, either as regards food, clothing or shelter, in order to maintain health. Therefore, the intrinsic case for equal compensation for civil injuries, which is the subject of the Amendment, has been amply demonstrated. In fact, with the possible exception of a single speech, I do not think it has been disputed by anyone here to-day.
The argument against this proposal is, therefore, not based upon any disagreement on the intrinsic merits: it is based on the alleged repercussions. It is said that if this admitted and proven inequality be rectified, it may bring about certain anomalies, and that other inequalities will be created about which there may be some argument. If you pursue that line of thought to its logical conclusion, it surely means that we can have no reform in this country unless, looking down the long line of possible repercussions, every one of those can be envisaged from the start: the enactment of one reform might be the peg upon which to hang a demand for removing other injustices. That is the "thin end of the wedge" argument. I thought that Lord Cecil, when he was a Member of this House, had disposed of that argument once and for all. It was said to him in regard to one matter that that would be to drive the thin end of a wedge into the British Constitution. To this Lord Cecil replied:
The British Constitution is stuck full of the thin ends of wedges that the good sense of the community has never driven home.
Let us have a reform which is admittedly due. If, in consequence of that, people discover other blots which they wish to remove, well and good; but if they find that, having remedied that particular injustice, others do not remain, let that stand alone.
As I pointed out at the beginning, the last time this was debated in the House the Government stood pat; they won the Division by 80 to 30, and they claimed that that settled the question. It has been suggested that this time the Government, in not standing pat, have only yielded to pressure. That is why I think that their move is of importance. If they had thrown out this proposal in their strength it might have been of comparatively little use; but they have thrown it out in their weakness. They fear the consequences of an adverse vote, and they say, "Although we are not prepared to give way to-day, we are prepared to make this definite proposal of the submission of the question to a Select Committee."
I want to examine that offer, to see its value. If the Government had made no offer and all those who support the principle had gone into the Division Lobby several Members have suggested that the Government might be defeated, and have

asked what might be the consequences? I want to suppose the opposite result. Suppose all those who supported this principle went into the Lobby, and the Government won. The Government would go on for a long time saying, "We defeated you when this proposal came up in the House, and, therefore, we are not going to do anything." I think there is a great advantage in getting the Government to take a step. It is true that it is a very small and faltering step. I, and, I am sure, most Members, would have much preferred the Government to have made up their minds to accept the principle of this Amendment and to have said, "Hitherto we have resisted this demand, but we have come to the conclusion to-day that the country wants it, and therefore we are willing to concede it." They are not prepared to do that. But, although the step is small and faltering, I am not prepared to dismiss it in the airy way that some of the supporters of this proposal have done. It is made under pressure, and I regard a promise made under pressure as being of considerable value. I count it as a definite victory that we have induced the Government to move at all. I have always noticed that the first attitude, when a reform is demanded, consists in the Government brushing it aside, and refusing to have anything to do with it. The stage of victory begins when the Government make a very small, but definite, step. I have great faith in the French proverb which says: "C'est le premier pas qui coûte."
The second point is that this matter is kept within the purview of the House of Commons, as it is a Select Committee that will be called upon to express its view with regard to the whole of this matter. Further, when this Committee has made its report, that report will have to be considered by this House, and the Government cannot get away from bringing the matter to the attention of the House at that time. The Government case is that the House, in its enthusiasm for the principle, is not aware of all the facts, and it invites us, by means of this Select Committee, to become seized of the facts. My own view is that the House of Commons knows a great deal more about this matter than the Government are inclined to suppose, but I do not think that this House can ever refuse a proposal to enable it to be fully informed before it expresses its opinion. Therefore, when


the Government come to us and say, "Let us appoint a Select Committee, so that all the facts which we have at our disposal, which incline us to take a contrary view, may be before the House of Commons," I think the House of Commons cannot refuse that offer. But, so far as I and those Members who take my view are concerned, if we thought for one moment that this proposal was made for the express purpose of shelving and defeating this issue, we would not be parties to the arrangement.
I am prepared, until it is proved to the contrary—which I believe it will not be—to accept this offer of the Government as a bona fide effort to thrash out this issue, to keep it within the purview of the House of Commons, and to enable us to come to an agreed decision. It is on that basis that I ask my hon. Friends to support the Government's proposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), I would have wished that those who are sponsoring this Amendment could have seen their way to taking the same view. It would be better if we had unanimously accepted the proposals of the Government and thereby put it upon the shoulders of the Government to justify their action. I cannot believe that if that were done the Government could play fast and loose with this House, as the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) seems to think that they intend to do, but it is not my business to offer advice to those who introduced this Amendment. If they choose to go into the Division Lobby then that must be so, but I would say to the Government that if we, believing in their good faith, accept for the present their proposal to form a Select Committee and do not cast our votes in favour of the Amendment, they must not for one moment take the figures in the Division Lobby as any indication of the measure of support that the proposal has inside the House of Commons. A great number will be going into the Division Lobby to support the Government because it is a question of the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, who equally strongly, with those who vote for the Amendment, believe in the principle, and who believe that the Government could and should give effect to it at the earliest possible opportunity.
Before I sit down there are certain questions that I want to put to the spokesman

who is to wind up for the Government in order to bring out the facts whether this is merely, as some people think, a time-saving, face-saving way out or whether it is as I think a real attempt to get the issue properly debated and decided. The first question relates to the speed of the inquiry. An hon. Member sitting below the Gangway on this side of the House said he thought the war would end before the Select Committee reported. None of us knows how long the war will last, but assuming that it lasts into the next year, I want an assurance from the Government that no time whatever will be lost, that the Select Committee will be appointed at the earliest possible moment, and that, as far as the Government are concerned, they will take every step to accelerate its inquries so that its report comes if not before Christmas, at any rate, very early in the New Year, and that the House will have the opportunity at a very early date of resuming this discussion not as an Amendment to the Motion of an Address to the Throne, but on a genuine discussion as to the merits of this particular issue.
I am not certain how the terms of reference of this committee will work out. It may be that under the terms of reference that we have had read out to us it will not be for the Select Committee to express a definite view in favour of or against this particular proposal. I understand that it will be a fact-finding committee and that it will lay down the basis on which the House of Commons will be enabled to form a definite opinion. If that be so, when the matter comes to the House after the report has been published the House of Commons will then be in possession of all the facts. The second question I want therefore to ask the Government is whether in these circumstances the Government will accept the verdict of the House of Commons and not treat it as a matter of confidence. It seems to me to be inherent in this Government proposal to set up a Select Committee that they ought to promise to accept the verdict of the House of Commons when, after being in possession of the facts, it makes up its mind on the question.
The third question is this: Will the delay in coming to a decision, possibly favourable to women, prejudice the compensation that will be paid to women who


have had an accident? If we had an assurance from the Government that in the event of the House of Commons coming to a favourable decision and their acting upon it the compensation that is paid will be the same as if the Government had taken action to-day, that in itself would be an earnest of the Government's sincerity in this matter.
My last word is this. There are those of us who are accepting this proposal at its face value and if in consequence of that support the numbers of those who vote against the Government in the Division Lobby are smaller than they otherwise would be, I beg of the Government not to think that, as a result, they can disregard this question hereafter. We speak in this matter to-day not for ourselves alone. Whether we have an actual majority in this House or not we shall not decide by the vote to-day but as to whether we have a majority in this country I think there is little doubt. The hon. Lady the Member for Frome has said 99 per cent. That may possibly be an exaggeration but there is no doubt whatever that the great bulk of people who 18 months ago were indifferent to this question have come to a very decided opinion at the present time. The opinion to which they have come by overwhelming majority is that this change ought to be effected and that as long as it is not, an injustice is being perpetrated upon women, an injustice which this country cannot regard otherwise than with shame. If the Government realise that, if they realise that any breach of faith in this matter will be visited upon them on another occasion with the serious displeasure of this House then I think that this Debate and its conclusion will not have been unsatisfactory. Although I have no wish to threaten, I am quite sure that the Government recognise that they cannot get away from a decision on a matter of this kind twice with a very short interval between. Those of us who are taking this line to-day would not hesitate on a later occasion to cast our votes to express thereby our determination that this reform shall be accomplished even if the Government are so foolish and misguided as to resist it and so force us to vote against them.

Miss Ward: I want, first of all, to thank the Government for

having afforded women an opportunity of giving a valuable demonstration of the working of our free Parliamentary institutions. We have been able to create in the country and in the House of Commons an opinion on a clear issue which the country can very readily and easily understand. The fact that events have been undoubtedly influenced by public opinion in the country and by the opinions expressed in this House has afforded to the world a demonstration that our Parliament is governed by public opinion. That is valuable not only to us but to the world.
I wish also to thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for the suggestion to set up a Select Committee of the House and for the sympathetic manner in which he developed his arguments. I take it that, in expressing his views, he was informing the House that the Government are, in fact, in favour of the principle of equal compensation for civilian war injuries. I know he will forgive me if I say we have been perhaps a little suspicious of the proposal for a Select Committee because of the very long time it has taken to convince the Government that our cause is just. From the way in which my right hon. Friend presented his case this afternoon, it would appear that it was only after the deputation organised and introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) last September that the Government gave serious consideration to the views we had been expressing for a very long time. I would remind the House of the number of times we have made representations to various Ministers, the number of deputations we have taken to various Ministers, and the reasons that have been put forward by the Minister of Pensions for refusing to accede to our requests. All this has been going on for a period of very nearly two years.
Although we all welcome this statement that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is a little difficult to understand this complete change of front by the Government with regard to their policy. Therefore, we have to be very careful in our consideration of the suggestions that were made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be idle to pretend that if the Government accept the principle there will not be certain repercussions. We have a very wide knowledge now of the working of


the Parliamentary machine. I am glad my right hon. Friend recognised that there are many other aspects to be considered if the principle is to be conceded, but of course, we are all very glad to know that, after the fact-finding Committee have reported to the House, there will be certain inequalities in existence which will have to be put right, if the principle is accepted. We are very glad indeed to know that the Government will no doubt take the necessary action to remedy the whole series of injustices which we have known about for a very long time.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two small points. The argument that the original scheme was based on workmen's compensation has been reiterated since we first raised the question but on two occasions, when it suited the Government, they altered the scheme. The original scheme was concerned with people who were gainfully employed, and it was widened to cover people who were not gainfully employed. Therefore, to continue to argue that the scheme is, so to speak, based entirely on workmen's compensation and the earning capacity of those who benefit by it is fallacious.
The other point to which I wish to draw attention is the differentiation in the basic scale between single and married men. If I remember rightly, originally it was 20s. for a single man, 33s. for a married man and 18s. for a woman. Owing to representations made, I think, by the National Fire Service the basic scale was altered. Married and single men were raised to 35s., and women to 20s. I am quoting the figures from memory. If, when it suited the Government, they were able to alter their own scheme, to insist on the argument that the whole difficulty arose from the original conception of the scheme will not hold water if very carefully examined. I am, therefore, a little surprised that the whole force of the Government argument is that because of the conception of the scheme it is very difficult to alter it without raising a vast number of issues. I should like the Minister of Pensions to state explicitly what the policy of the Government is. Have they, in offering this Select Committee, in fact accepted the principle of equal compensation? I was very grateful when the right hon. Gentleman said he approached the problem with sympathy and with a real desire to meet the

requests that have been put forward. We want to know whether that represents the Government view and whether they believe in the policy of equal compensation.
We are very glad that the Government have decided to set up a Select Committee, but a great many of us who have been connected in small ways with the machinery of government have grown rather used to the fact that committees are not always used for the purpose for which they are set up. I need not tell my right hon. Friend my views on the question of committees, but sometimes we have committees which have no power and which act as a convenient umbrella for a Minister. Of course, I am of a suspicious nature. What I want to know about this committee is whether, when it has reported and when it has outlined, possibly, some real difficulties in relation to the instances which my right hon. Friend outlined in his speech, the House of Commons is then to decide its own policy, or will the Government formulate a policy on the committee's report and present it to the House? Will the Government then make it a matter of Government policy and a vote of confidence, or, when the report is presented, will the House be allowed a free vote? Are the Government offering us a Debate and a vote on the committee's report? Suppose the committee find a great many difficulties which, however, can be overcome, will the Government undertake to overcome them or will they find a variety of reasons why, if we overcome them, the pebble will be thrown into the stream and there will be more and more repercussions? If my right hon. Friend will elucidate what is to happen to the report it will clear the air so far as the House is concerned.
I understand that the Government hope that the committee will report within a reasonable time. One hon. Gentleman suggested one month, but I have no wish to tie down the Government on this. I am being sweetly reasonable because I realise that when one goes into an inquiry of this kind, it is difficult to estimate how many inquiries will have to be made and how many witnesses will have to be called. As the Government have told us that they themselves have no idea what the repercussions will be, I can see that it would be very difficult for them to set a time limit to the inquiry. We are trying to respond in a sweetly reasonable


manner to the reasonable case my right hon. Friend put from the Treasury Bench. At the same time, we ought to be able to set some kind of time limit. After that the House will be able to judge whether the Government's intentions are honourable or whether they are really trying to lead us up the garden path. I am sure that I speak for the large majority of Members when I say that we are not in a mood to be led up the garden path. I shall be very glad if my right hon. Friend will make the position crystal clear. On his interpretation of my words "crystal clear" I think that the House will take its own decision.
I want to say a word about the question of a vote on an Amendment to the Address. I have no qualms about it at all. If I wished to vote for an Amendment to the Address I should do so with a clear conscience. Independent Members are inclined to think that they have the sole privilege of being independent. Curiously enough—and I know that my hon. Friends in the. Labour Party will not object to what I am going to say—I find it is much easier to be independent in the Tory Party than in probably any other party in the world. Therefore, I am not really worried by that question. In the years to come the success or the failure of our Parliamentary system will depend to a very large extent on how we conduct ourselves during these difficult years. We in the House of Commons are very well versed in Parliamentary procedure. We here know all the tactics of a Whip's Office and the Treasury Bench, we know the tactics of all the individual parties, but they are not known to the nation as a whole, and there is a feeling throughout the country that politics have ceased to be realistic.
I am sure that my women colleagues in the House would like me to pay a tribute to my horn Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) for the way she has carried on this battle right through from the beginning. I know that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and men in general, sometimes say that women are not stable, but as a matter of fact they have a great deal more pertinacity than a good many men. If we vote on this Amendment we vote on a matter of principle and we know that the country will accept it as a matter of principle. The public like realism in politics. The Whips are often anxious to explain to us the effect in his constituency of an adverse

vote given by a Member of Parliament. I can assure the House that their psychology is all wrong, and as the country is now whole-heartedly behind the principle of equal compensation a realistic vote in the House of Commons will not hurt Parliamentary prestige. After all, the people who went through the blitzes in the East End of London and in places like Coventry, Liverpool, Clydeside and Tyneside do not know Parliamentary traditions and do not understand the technicalities connected with voting for or against an Amendment to the Address. All they realise is that here is a great principle, one that has been fought for by many Members in the House of Commons because there is very real support for it in the country, and that that principle has been opposed by the Government, and a realistic vote on such an Amendment, based on principle, would, I assure the House, have a stimulating effect on the country.
Therefore, I do not accept the argument that the country would not understand why, when a Select Committee has been offered to us, we still vote on principle. Principle still counts in the minds of the people. We should be very ill advised, in the greatest Parliament in the world, to weaken the belief of people in the fight that can be fought for justice in the House of Commons. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will deal very fully with the intentions of the Government, and I hope that those intentions are as honourable as I am inclined to think they are.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I have no desire to detain the House, as I know that hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister's speech. I think it is universally agreed that a Vote on the Address is generally inexpedient. The Debate to-day has shown, however, that this is not a matter of expediency but of plain and simple justice. I understand the offer of the Government to be that a committee should be set up to consider the repercussions and implications of the suggestion contained in the Amendment. What the House wants to know before it comes to a decision is this: In setting up a committee, are the Government proposing to give terms of reference to the committee which embody acceptance by the Government of the principle of equal compensation? If that is so, all that matters


is that the committee should report exceedingly quickly and that, when it has reported, there shall be a free vote of the House. It is however essential for us to know whether the Government are telling the committee, "We believe in, equal compensation. Now work out the implications of it"; or whether they are telling the committee, "A suggestion has been made that there shall be equal compensation. We wish you to consider the matter and to report whether it is possible or not."

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I wish to express to the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and to other hon. Members that on these benches we are by no means adverse on this issue of equal pay and of equal rights for equal citizenship. We know now what the repercussions will be, and we could write the report for the committee, if need were. We know that it means that industrial freedom has to be tackled. We know it means the whole of social insurance and everything relating to insurance policy, in fact everything that has gone on for the last few generations, to effect inequalities between women and men. I am wondering whether the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has ever contributed in the industrial world to lifting some of our girls out of those foul conditions which women have been permitted to endure, not during this war or during the last war, but probably for the last 30 or 40 years.
I have no qualms of conscience in going into the Lobby to-day in support of the hon. Lady's Amendment. I notice that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has just entered the House. She is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security. I am sure she will not mind my mentioning this: We are on equal terms as trade-union officials. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) challenged me a moment ago by asking whether any trade union paid the same rate of pay for men and women. The answer is very simple. The hon. Member for Jarrow and myself are paid the same rate of pay. In our trade union we are not concerned with sex. We pay for the job and not the person. We carry it a stage further. We say the same thing about our clerks as well. In the borough where

I reside, I am glad to say that a woman who sweeps the road does not have the yardstick of sex applied to her. We go by the nature of the job that is done and not by the person. Women road sweepers are paid the same rate of pay as the men. We have also carried it a stage further, to salvage collectors. In many local authorities now we are not concerned whether men or women are doing the job. A woman who collects salvage at my door is paid the same rate as any man who might have been doing it.
I would like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. If he sent me, or my woman neighbour who might be injured by the same bomb, to a doctor, would the doctor begin to analyse or argue as to whether I was to receive one form of treatment or another and whether there were to be two rates of charge by the same doctor for the same kind of accident? Would there be two grades of treatment? If we had to go to the dentist, would he begin to argue with me as to whether there should be different rates for a woman and for a man? Furthermore, if it is a woman doctor who is to treat me, can I begin to argue that instead of charging me 7s. 6d. for a bottle of medicine, the charge should be only 5s., because she is a woman? It is perfectly ridiculous, as everyone knows. I ask the women Members who have been speaking on this issue, the hon. Member for Wallsend, the hon. Member for Frome, and the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), and the other Members who have put their names down to this Amendment, including employers of labour, to come out into the industrial field when this Amendment has been carried, and the Government have accepted the principle, and say to the employers of labour, say to everyone in industry, "This is a crusade for a genuine improvement for the womenfolk of this country, and there is no going back after the war," that instead of there being a rate of pay of 43s. for women munition workers, there shall be only rates for the job in munition factories and that the rates of pay everywhere else shall be rates for the job. I make this appeal, and I hope my right hon. Friend will have no hesitation in saying that, so far as his industrial colleagues in the Government and the Members we have sent into the Government are concerned,


they are standing by the principle just as sincerely as we do.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I must say that, so far as we have gone, this Debate has been conducted in a very friendly manner, and we have had the pleasure of listening to some exceedingly good speeches. What will happen between now and the time we take the vote I do not know. I remember a very revered Member of this House, now gone from us, when we were discussing on one occasion this question of equality between the sexes saying that it had always been the greatest regret of his life that he had never been a mother. Therefore there can never be equality. I am glad we are not discussing sex equality as such to-day, but it cannot be altogether separated from the subject under discussion. In the first place, I feel that, as the Minister responsible for carrying out the arrangements made under the Civilian Injuries Scheme, making the payments and so forth, it is only just to me and my Department that I should make quite clear what we have been doing in the past, because I am astonished to find that a number of Members have not realised what we have been paying in compensation, and how we have been doing it.
Compensation under the Civilian Injuries Scheme is divided into three categories. First, there is what we term—the lawyers could not find a better term—the gainfully employed people; secondly, there are the Civil Defence workers; and, thirdly, a class that was brought in after we had had experience of the working of the original Civilian Injuries Scheme, and brought in because of Debate in this House and a demand from Members that they should be brought in, a striking example of the Government following the opinion in the House. This class is the non-gainfully employed. As regards the gainfully employed, I am here to say that there is equality as between the sexes, equality in this way: We were urged by trade unions and those who represented the workers of this country that we must relate the compensation paid under this scheme to workmen's compensation.
We had taken away the right of the employee to sue his employer if the injury was caused by enemy action or in repelling the enemy, and we had to substitute something of equal value. The original scales were not of equal value. It was

also said that we had relieved the employer of his obligation to provide, through insurance and so on, for meeting any claims. The employer had a good argument, inasmuch as it would have been very difficult to find anyone prepared to take on such an insurance risk. Indeed; as I said when the scheme was introduced, it was unique. You were bound to experiment in the early stages, to find out how you could improve the scheme to meet the wishes of the people of this country.
We fixed the rates with a 35s. maximum for both men and women in industry under workmen's compensation; and we had to arrive at a proper figure so that the same rate of compensation would be paid to those in industry who were injured by enemy action as would have been paid if they had been injured in the course of their ordinary employment. We could have started on the same lines as the Workmen's Compensation Acts and have said that we would pay half wages up to 35s. a week for both sexes. That would have involved considerable difficulty for my Department. It would have meant a great number of people going around inspecting the wages books and so on, and it would have meant introducing a system which I thought undesirable, particularly in view of the fact that at that time, when so much blitzing was going on, it was essential for the people concerned that we should be on the job quickly. We decided that the fairest thing was to take the average of the half wages of those in employment, and we took that average from the Ministry of Labour Returns. It was shown that for gainfully-employed men the 35s. represented the average of half earnings at that time. As regards women, the average was much below 28s.—it was around 26s.—but we had to take into account that there was a tendency for wages of female workers to rise. We wanted to be on the safe side, and we made the figure 28s. I contend that, although we have certainly deprived a few women of what they would get under the half-wages system, we have given many others more than they would have got under workmen's compensation. We have to ask those women who have received a little less to make that small sacrifice on behalf of their sisters who would otherwise have considerably less. In paying out a Government allowance or pension, it is much better, I think the


House will agree, to have a standard rate rather than a fluctuating rate, which would mean making a means test of earnings during the past 12 months. So far as the gainfully-employed are concerned, there is no dispute: there is equality between the two sexes. If the House wishes to carry the scheme out in the same way as workmen's compensation, it will make a great difference to the working of my Department, but we can do it, and then there will be no dispute.
When we come to full-time Civil Defence workers, we are up against a very great difficulty. As was explained by the Deputy Prime Minister, under the sickness pay arrangements the men and the women get 26 weeks' full pay if they are sick or injured. It means that, as the rate of pay for a man in the Civil Defence services is 74s. a week, and for a woman 52s. a week, by sticking to that system of paying for 26 weeks, you cannot possibly have equality unless the woman is to receive 22s. a week more when she is sick than she receives when she is working. That is a principle which has never been accepted by friendly societies, trade unions or the Government Health Insurance Department. That is a difficulty, and one of the many reasons why we have to have an inquiry. Take that section of the Civil Defence organisation who are not full-time but part-time and who are employed in some other occupation during the day. It was decided that they should receive 13 weeks' full payment of their wages up to these maximums of 74s. and 52s., and so they are provided for. Our experience in the case of the Civil Defence workers has been that there are far more claims for ordinary accidents than there are for accidents caused by enemy action or by repelling the enemy, and that the majority of these cases are cleared off the books before the 26 weeks have expired. We shall see what our experience of part-time workers is as we go along.
I contend that so far as these two categories are concerned there is nothing really in dispute between one section and the other in this House. It is a question of looking into the whole matter, and of examining it in the light of the facts which we and those who have moved this Amendment can bring to the notice of the

Committee. But I agree that when you come to the non-gainfully employed you are again up against some little difficulty. That was introduced, as I have said, at the request of this House after a prolonged Debate, and actually a Division was taken. Although that Division was favourable to the Government at the time, I am glad to say that the Government took notice of the speeches that had been made during that Debate and gave a full and careful consideration to the position. I myself received deputations from various women's organisations, and at that time I did not receive any strong representations about the differences in the rates. That was not so apparent. We were not giving anything at all to the non-gainfully employed, but I received very strong representations on behalf of the married women of this country.
It was because of these strong representations that we introduced a scale for non-gainfully employed. That non-gainfully employed scale was fixed in this way. First of all, as there was a difference in pension rates as between men and women not only among civilians but among the Services, it was reasonable to say that there should be a slight difference as between the man and the woman in this matter. Whether that was right or wrong, I am submitting it to the House as the opinion which was expressed at the time. Now the position is as follows: Our experience has shown us that 85 per cent. of the claims of the non-gainfully employed are married women. The argument that was put up to us on behalf of these married women was that, although the married woman has a husband responsible for her support, was it fair to ask that woman to struggle on with her household duties, as many of them would do, although they were injured and suffering ill-health, and that at any rate we should provide something in the way of compensation so that, if necessary, outside help could be brought into the house. I thought that that was a very sound argument. I know from my own experience of working-class households that it is often the case that a housewife is so afraid of having to pay, out of her husband's earnings, someone else to come in that she will struggle and carry on when she ought not to do it and when she ought really to be resting.
We fixed a sum of money to meet this need, which should be given as compen-


sation. We have had a good deal of experience of this now, and we know it has helped tremendously in the households where women have been injured and where men, receiving the ordinary standard rate of pay, could not afford to pay for this extra help. I have, had more letters commending the Government for having undertaken to meet this payment to women than I have had letters of complaint about inequality. I have had practically no complaints at all from the civil population, either about the rates or the question of inequality. I have had thousands of postcards, all printed alike, sent from different parts of the country, and I have taken notice of them, but I want to submit that we must not exaggerate the position. We must look at it as a matter of fair play and justice. That is my desire and the desire of the Government.

Mr. Tinker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what payments are made?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. They are 21s. for a man and 16s. 4d. for a woman. But these rates do not affect this argument very much, because practically no men are claiming. As I have said, 85 per cent. of the claims have been made by married women whose husbands are able to support them, and this has been an addition to the income to provide extra help. In both cases there is free medical and hospital treatment. The question at issue is: What will be lost if you bring down the man to the women's scale? I do not think anybody would complain—

Mr. Davidson: Is there equal medical treatment?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: What if the wife is working and the man is keeping house?

Sir W. Womersley: Well, in Scotland there used to be a song entitled "We all go to work but father," but I think that is dead now. However, we must come to the crucial question we are discussing to-day. I could have brought other arguments forward to give to Members on this subject, because I have been steeped up to the neck in it for many months. I have been trying to find a real solution to this problem. Believe me, I have my sympathies. One hon.

Lady mentioned about our mothers. Well, I have said in this House before, and I repeat it, that I had the best mother in the world. Possibly I should not have come into this House but for the influence of my mother. [Laughter.] Well, the first time I ever sought the suffrages of electors for a seat on the council I was asked, "Are you Mrs. Womersley's lad?" I replied, "Yes," and I was told, "Well, you are all right then." So my mother did me a good turn then.

Mr. Davidson: Did the old man do anything for you?

Sir W. Womersley: I can see the many difficulties that lie ahead, and I want this House to have full knowledge of the whole position before coming to a final decision. I submit that it is a reasonable thing to refer this subject to a Select Committee. I have heard hon. Members talk about the Select Committee as though it were something the Government would have in their pocket, but that is a grave reflection upon the Members of the House. The Members of a Select Committee are selected from all parties in the House, not because they take particular views on the subject either for or against, but—[Interruption]. If the hon. Member is a Member of his party organisation, he will have the right to have a say in the matter, I submit that to cast reflections upon a Select Committee is to cast reflections upon ourselves. Surely, there cannot be any fairer tribunal than a Select Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked a series of questions which it was quite right and proper to ask. First, he asked about the speed of the inquiry. My answer is that no time will be lost—[Interruption]—perhaps hon. Members will allow me to continue and finish the sentence—in setting up the Select Committee. That is the Government's duty. Certainly, the Government will recommend the Select Committee to report as quickly as possible, and we hope it will be before the Christmas Recess. But can the Government or any member of the Government dictate to a Select Committee how long it shall take in its investigation? I want this matter to be quite clearly understood. It is not a laughing matter. It is not a question of trying to push the thing off. If a Select


Committee is set up and asked to expedite the examination as much as possible, we are bound to leave it to the Committee and its judgment, and hon. Members can prod the Committee if it is not getting on with the matter as quickly as hon. Members think it ought. There will be no desire on the part of the Government to have any delay whatever. This is not a question of burking the issue.

Mr. Stephen: "Tell me the old, old story."

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member has read the hymn book: so have I. I think I have cleared up that point. The next question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was whether there will be a Debate in the House when the Report is presented. Certainly, there will be. As has been stated already, it will be a fact-finding committee and when it reports on the matters covered by the terms of reference—[Interruption.] The terms of reference have been read three times in the Debate, but I will read them again in a moment or two. Certainly, it is most desirable that there should be a Debate in the House when the Committee reports. What is the good of the Select Committee sitting and taking the evidence—

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Government accept the Report?

Sir W. Womersley: The Government cannot say beforehand that they will accept that Report, but it will be in the hands of the House, and the House will be able to decide.

Miss Ward: By a free vote?

Sir W. Womersley: There are methods of Parliamentary procedure by which these matters can be dealt with. [Laughter.] I cannot understand this ribald laughter. If hon. Members who are laughing had been in the Whips' Office for four years, as I have been, they would realise that the House of Commons is predominant, but that a minority of the House cannot be predominant. The Report of the Select Committee will come before the House for full discussion. The next question which the right hon. Gentleman asked—

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: There was so much noise that I could not hear what the answer to the second question was.

Sir W. Womersley: I said that the Government must be responsible—the right hon. Gentleman, I think, will appreciate that; he has been a member of a Government—and that the Report would be brought before the House. The House could then express their opinion either in debate or in the Lobby if they decided to call a Division. That is as far as I can go—as far as I ought to go, I am certain. The next question was whether the payment would be retrospective.

Mr. W. Brown: No, the next question was, Would the House of Commons be allowed a free vote on that issue?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member has been in the House a little time, and before that for quite a long time. Surely he knows the method of conducting a Parliamentary Debate. I am answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh, who asked whether the Government would adopt a policy if that policy was laid down by the Committee.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: My question was whether the Government would accept the view of the House on the facts laid down by the Committee.

Sir W. Womersley: We shall have to hear what the views of the House are. The next question is whether the payment will be retrospective. [Interruption.] I must ask to be allowed to finish my observations. I did not interrupt the hon. Member or anyone else. I was tempted at times, but I did not do it. These are very serious questions. Surely hon. Members are not going to make this into a variety theatre. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member realises that it is not a branch meeting either. The question is whether it will be retrospective. That is a question that we shall have to go into, providing it is decided that the Committee reports that the payment should be increased. We will go into it very carefully, because it is a question whether it is practicable to do it. We will look into it and report later on. I have been asked to read the terms of reference. This is what was read out by the Deputy Prime Minister:
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon the effect of the proposal that civilian women should be compensated equally with civilian men for war injuries on the general principles of compensation and levels of remuneration.


I think that narrows it down to the terms of the Amendment. If the Committee want to make inquiries into matters that might be repercussions from this, that is for the Committee to decide within the terms of reference. I think those terms have been drawn up to meet the wishes of those who put down the Amendment. I may say further, for the benefit of many Members who do not seem to realise the powers of a Select Committee, that they have power to send for papers, persons and records. The Committee will be representative of every section of the House. I have given a pledge that it will be appointed without the slightest delay, and we shall ask them to make a Report as soon as possible. The Report must come before the House, and the promise has been given that there will be the fullest opportunity for full debate on the question.
I am satisfied that Members, after reading the evidence and noting the Report, will be in a far better position to cast their vote than they will be to-day. When I give a vote I want to be dead sure that I am not creating worse anomalies by removing one anomaly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may say "No," but if they had the job of administering a Department like mine, they would think differently. I was persuaded that it was a wise thing to give allowances to the non-gainfully employed, but that has raised more anomalies than anything else. People who get them say "Thank you," but many other people complain. On an issue such as this it is far better to have a Select Committee of Members of the House independent of the Government in order to examine the whole of the facts—facts brought by the hon. Lady and her supporters and facts that I should have to put before the Committee as the responsible Minister. After calm and careful consideration the Committee will report to the House, and the Report will give hon. Members the opportunity of knowing the case as it really is. I had hoped that the hon. Lady would withdraw her Amendment. I think that she would have been wise, because it would have strengthened her position and shown that she was in earnest in getting what is just, as the Government are.
The House will have to go to a Division if the hon. Lady decides to carry the Amendment to the vote. If it does, may

I make an appeal to my hon. Friends? I have carried on the work in connection with the civil injuries scheme for some time. I have done my level best to make it a workable scheme. It is unique in the whole history of pensions and allowances, and I repeat what I have said before, that if I see any improvements that can be made, I shall not be afraid to come to the House and ask for them. Reference was made to that by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I have been twice to the House for improved rates and conditions. I repeat the promise I made at that time. I ask the House to believe that we have at times to meet difficulties which are not easy to explain on the Floor of the House, but which can be properly sifted and inquired into in a committee room upstairs by the House's own representatives. If there is a Division, I ask hon. Members to support the Government, because I think the Government's offer is fair and just.

Sir William Davison: Is the expression that the Committee is to report as soon as possible in the terms of reference, or is that an expression of the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion?

Sir W. Womersley: It is not an expression of my own opinion but an expression of the Government's opinion.

Sir W. Davison: Is it to be in the terms of reference?

Sir W. Womersley: How far would that carry us? We shall ask the Committee to expedite their inquiry, and I have no doubt that the Members who will serve on the Committee are here to-day, and they will understand what the feeling of the House is.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point I raised whether the Government accept the principle of the Amendment?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Lady says that she is going to a Division, and she had better go to a Division and not try to drag too much out of me before she does go. The point is that the Committee will have to consider the whole issue. If we state that we accept this and accept the other, what is the good of a committee of inquiry?

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: Suppose that in an


ordnance factory there are a dozen women and one man working in a shop and there is an accident which injures them all 100 per cent. Under present Regulations what would be the difference between the compensation that the man would get and the women would get?

Division No. 1.
AYES.



Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Poole, Captain C. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Granville, E. L.
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barstow, P. G.
Grey, Captain G. C.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Roberts, W.


Beven, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Harvey, T. E.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Hewlett, T. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Broad, F. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Savory, Professor D. L.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Sloan, A.


Butcher, Lieut. H. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.
Key, C. W.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Chater, D.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Stokes, R. R.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirkwood, D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Leonard, W.
Taylor, Captain C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Leslie, J. R.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Linstead, H. N.
Viant, S. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lyons, Major A. M.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Doland, G. F.
McGhee, H. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Watson, W. McL.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacLaren, A.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Wilson, C. H.


Elliston, Captain G. S.
Maxton, J.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Foster, W.
Molson, A. H. E.



Gallacher, W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Owen, Major G.
Mrs. Tate and Dr. Summerskill.


Gledhill, G.
Parker, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Frankel, D.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Charleton, H. C.
Fraser, Capt. Sir Ian


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cobb, Captain E. C.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.


Ammon, C. G.
Colegate, W. A.
Gates, Major E. E.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h. Univ.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gibson, Sir C. G.


Assheton, R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. A. Duff
Goldie, N. B.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Barnes, A. J.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Beattie, F.
Daggar, G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)


Beechman, N. A.
Dobbie, W.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)


Benson, G.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Groves, T. E.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Drewe, C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hambro, Capt. A. V.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Haslam, Henry


Brabner, Lt.-Comdr. R. A.
Ede J. C.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hicks, E. G.


Burden, T. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Higgs, W. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Holdsworth, H.


Carver, Colonel W. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)


Cary, R. A.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)


Channon, H.
Foot, D. M.
Holmes, J. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence

Sir W. Womersley: So far as I can see, that question has no bearing on the issue which is before us at the moment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 229.

Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Hughes, R. M.
Paling, W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Hunter, T.
Peake, O.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Isaacs, G. A.
Peat, C. U.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Petherick, Major M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Summers, G. S.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jewson, P. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


John, W.
Ponsonby, Col. G. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Power, Sir J. C.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Kimball, Major L.
Price, M. P.
Thurtle, E.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pym, L. R.
Titchfield, Lt.-Col. Marquess of


Lewis, O.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tomlinson, G.


Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
Touche, G. C.


Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rickards, G. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


McKie, J. H.
Ridley, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)
Ritson, J.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Mander, G. le M.
Ross Taylor, W.
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Markham, Major S. F.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Westwood, J.


Marshall, F.
Salt, E. W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Mathers, G.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Montague, F.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Silkin, L.
Willink, H. U.


Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Simmonds, O. E.
Wilmot, John


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (Woolwich, W.)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Muff, G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich).
York, Capt. C.


Nall, Sir J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)



Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Oliver, G. H.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and




Mr. Boulton.

Main Question again proposed.

It being after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL OBSERVER CORPS CENTRES (MEN OVER 50)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Colonel Arthur Evans: In view of the lateness of the hour and the short time available I will come straight to the point. At Question time to-day I asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he would be good enough to make a statement as to why he had decided to dismiss men over 50 years of age from the service of the Cardiff Centre of the Royal Observer Corps. I think it is clear from the reply of the Minister that there has been considerable misunderstanding on this question throughout the country, and it is now clear that his decision applies

only to personnel over 50 years of age who are at present posted to observer centres and not observer posts throughout the country. The House, of course, will agree with the Minister that in the efficient prosecution of the war, and indeed in any defence organisation, the Minister can have regard to one thing and one thing only, and that is efficiency. One would not dispute that for a moment. The only doubt in my mind and in the minds of some hon. Friends of mine, is whether this efficiency will be achieved by an arbitrary rule dismissing personnel over 50 years of age. One appreciates also that time is an essential factor in the discharge of these most important duties, the duties of plotting in an observation centre. An aeroplane, as I understand it, when it is passing overhead has to be notified immediately to the observation centre, and if, for the sake of argument, there is only 45 seconds' delay in answering the telephone, it is quite possible that that aeroplane has proceeded another four miles on its course, and, therefore, the information which has been furnished to the central authority is useless.


But I think we are entitled to have some regard to the efficient work these men have done in the past. It has been agreed—in fact it has been publicly acknowledged by Ministers of the Crown—that the Battle of Britain was won not only by those gallant young men in the Royal Air Force—that the Observer Corps played a very large part also. If the R.A.F. had not been acquainted with the direction of the enemy approach, they would not have been able to muster their forces in the desired quarter.
As it is necessary for the Government to relieve Ministers of their duties for one reason or another—if they become tired, or, perhaps, overstrained—as indeed it is necessary for the Defence Minister to change his generals sometimes, so, I agree, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to examine the personnel of these Observation Centres and to see whether there are men who, either through their own fault or because of something outside their control, are not pulling their weight. These Observation Centres have relatively a small personnel. The men at present employed are generally of a very high standard. Perhaps hon. Members have seen a letter in "The Times" this morning, signed by "Four over-50 members" of one observation post. One of these observers is a retired naval commander, and the others are a barrister, a novelist, and a playwright. For three years and more, these men have been actively employed in discharging these duties. It is a task for trained men. You do not acquire that efficiency which is necessary overnight. Whereas it is possible for a commanding officer of a unit to make a confidential report on his officers to his military superior, and to make recommendations for their retention, transfer, or discharge, so it should be possible for the senior officer in an observation post to represent to his immediate superior the men that should be retained and those who should be allowed to go because they are not able to discharge their duties with the necessary efficiency. If my right hon. Friend adopted that system, instead of making arbitrary rules for the discharge of all men over 50, he would be achieving the end in view.
There is another point, which is very important. Man-power is one of the

gravest problems of the time. The Government propose to substitute for these older men women under 35. The average British woman under that age is a highly efficient machine, but a machine which can be employed in other ways than on these duties, which, in my submission, are well suited to men of the type now engaged in them. Such women are doing their duty not only in the Forces and administrative services, but in the factories, and doing men's work. At this time we can ill afford to lose the men now engaged at these centres. I am not going to appeal on sentimental grounds, but on the highly practical ground of efficient discharge of responsible duties. In order to give other members and my right hon. Friend time to make their points, I will conclude.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I rise to make two points. When I was in Malta, I had to train about 40 civilian women plotters. I found that all who were over 40 were extremely slow at their work, and one by one I had to drop them. I had to content myself with women, in the main over 30, although some were under 30. That is what goes on in all our Fighter Command plotting rooms, all over the country.
Another point is that I have had a great deal of experience in the training of both men and women at plotting and I can tell the House, in the light of two years' experience doing almost nothing else, that the women are very much better at plotting than men. It is a type of work which women's minds seem to take to automatically. If the decision of the Ministry is to employ women in all Observer Corps plotting centres in the same way as they employ W.A.A.F.s in ordinary operations, in my own experience, it is the right decision.

Mr. Stokes: I want to detain the House for one minute to say, in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that two of the most efficient men in my organisation are engaged in this work. They are both over 50, and I would consider it a national disadvantage if their services were discontinued.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans) for


giving an opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment, and I apologise to other hon. Members who may have wished to speak. I am sure that they will appreciate that time is limited, and I am glad that we have this opportunity, because I hope to be able to clear up some misconceptions. There is no question of wholesale dismissals in the Royal Observer Corps. The change we are now proposing is due to altered operational requirements and the extended operational duties of the Royal Observer Corps. It affects approximately 1,400 personnel out of the total strength of the Corps. There have been many unwitting misrepresentations in the Press as to the effect of this order. It has been represented that it is a reflection on the good work which the Royal Observer Corps have done. There is no question that the Royal Observer Corps members have fulfilled patriotically their part in the air defence of this country, but new methods and new equipment must be operated to the maximum efficiency, and to this end the order for the gradual replacement of the over fifties and the substitution of them by immobile women is introduced in order to increase the efficiency of plotting and telling.
The Royal Observer Corps plays a vital role in air defence. It is the ears and the eyes of the Royal Air Force. It plots and it tracks all the aircraft, both friendly and hostile. This is necessary from the operational standpoint; particularly at night, otherwise it is impossible to separate the tracks of friendly and hostile aircraft. It will interest the House to know that the vast increase in night operational flying and in other types of night flying, including night instruction, over the last two years has made the work in these observation centres to-day approximately of the same pressure and volume as was met with during the relatively short time of the blitzes when the air force of the enemy was at its greatest against this country in 1940–41. There is a constant and ever-increasing pressure going on in these centres. It will interest the House again to know that the Royal Observer Corps has guided, in conjunction with other methods, an average of about 20 bombers a month to safety, and the figure was about 40 last month. But the figure should be higher. It has to be higher if we are to get the maximum safety among

all these bombers which are returning from offensive operations over Germany. When I said the results should be better still the House will be with me when I say that we should be ruthless in our determination to introduce methods to get the highest efficiency in this service, irrespective of personal considerations.

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask a question?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The order does not affect men on posts, many of whom are over 50, who can still efficiently carry out their work, very often in exceedingly difficult conditions in posts. It only affects men at centres engaged in this plotting and telling. The work on which they are engaged corresponds almost exactly to the work carried on in Fighter Command operations rooms. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris) said, we are having in our Fighter Command operations rooms to reduce our top age. The work is of a novel sort and requires young, active brains to adapt themselves to it.
There is an old cry, "Too old at 50," which may apply to some things and which may not apply to others, but it certainly does apply to this particular type of work, which imposes a constant strain which, as we have found by experience, young people can stand the best. Some hon. Members over 50—I am not quite there myself—still do work competently and efficiently in various walks of life, but how many over 50 could suddenly learn all there is to know about the conversion of sound circle heights into corrected heights, involving angle distance plotting and a new method evolved by scientists working directly for the Royal Observer Corps, and the accurate computation of range and angle by plotters, all in a matter of seconds? After all Fighter Command is responsible for the safety of this country from air attack and has found it necessary to impose a top-age limit, for this work, of 35. We have had anxiety for the last 18 months as to the work carried on at these centres, and now that new and complicated apparatus which I know the House would not expect me to enlarge upon here to-day is being introduced for operation by the Royal Observer Corps, quite frankly we are worried as to whether our top age limit of 50 will give us the required


efficiency. Indeed, the time may come, as pressure on the R.O.C. centres becomes greater and more scientific apparatus is produced, when we may have to go below 50.
These centres contain people of a fairly high average age, as many of the younger men of the Royal Observer Corps have gone to the Forces. Of the 1,400 persons engaged we have 25 over 70,280 between 61 and 70, and the balance of the 1,400 are between 51 and 60. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) used the argument that he had men over 50 who were splendid men and who could do this work. I would not deny that in exceptional cases men over 50 can do this work, but you cannot introduce a system to check the individual efficiency of each man. After all, the yardstick of age is what we have accepted in our public and industrial life as being broadly the measure by which we say whether a man shall or shall not continue his, work. There are always exceptions, but so much above the Fighter Command age limit is our top limit of 50 that I do not think it would be possible to legislate for exceptional cases. We must accept the yardstick of age. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff asked about the man-power position. Well, the men displaced will be given the opportunity of transferring to Royal Observer Corps posts in the neighbourhood. Their work will be in exposed places and not so pleasant, but already there are men of 50 doing this work gallantly, and I see no reason why they should not be able to do this work as well. We shall transfer them to Vacancies where we can, and the balance will be available for other war work.
Of the 1,400 men, some 200 are full-time and the remainder are part-time. These 1,400 men will be replaced by 700 immobile women under 35. These men will be given the opportunity of working at the posts, and the remainder, I am quite sure, will be glad to do their part in the war effort by fire-watching or doing some other national work in which their services will be useful. I submit it would be better to have those 1,200 men, or such proportion as we cannot absorb at the posts, on fire-watching or some other form of war work, and to take 700 immobile women who, after all, are not so

physically strong for fire-watching and other forms of war work, but who are particularly suitable for this work at the Centres, as we have found by experience, and let them do that work for which they are suitable. I submit that the resistance to this order and the protests are largely based on misapprehensions. The order is not unpopular in large sections of the Royal Observer Corps itself. We have had complaints from posts in several places in the country as to the slow working at the Centres. We hope now to make the functioning of these Centres so efficient as to ensure their continuation as a vital part of our air defence, able to absorb this new technique and these new appliances, able to adapt themselves to these new methods and to the increased work as these are met with. We save man-power, we use women where men have previously been used, and we release those men for other forms of work for which they are more suitable than they are for that on which we have employed them in the past; but more than that—what I am sure the House will accept from me as being the most cogent argument of the lot—we have a greater chance of saving the lives of our airmen by increasing the efficiency of our air defence system.

Wing-Commander James: I think the agitation and anxiety on this matter were due to a misunderstanding. I have taken a great interest in the Royal Observer Corps for a long time, and I have had an opportunity of seeing something of their work. There has, of course, been great unevenness in the efficient operation of the Corps which has to be levelled out. A new and hand-picked officer—not a Regular but an auxiliary—having a very distinguished record at Fighter Command, was, I understand, given the task of surveying the position some time ago, and after very careful examination of the problem he has come to certain conclusions, which I am quite certain are right conclusions. There is, however, one small matter which arises out of this Debate. There must have been a slip somewhere, in that this anxiety was ever caused. This matter ought never to have got out in the way in which it did. Anxiety was caused among men at the posts, who were not affected by the Order, by premature Press reports. The only point I wish to put to the Minister is whether he will endeavour to see that in


future, when a really sound scheme is to be brought out, the Air Ministry's public relation officers will give the necessary directions to the Press so as not to cause unnecessary anxiety,

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I was very interested, as I am sure the whole House was, in hearing from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the duties and functions of the Royal Observer Corps, but I wish to ask him to reconsider the question of some selective medical examination of the men over 50. I feel there is great disparity between one man and another, and it seems a pity to throw aside on to the scrap heap, as it were, from this particular duty many men who are more receptive and capable than others. It would save a great deal of time if they were retained, instead of having a lot of young women trained for the work.

Major Petherick: I can well understand the motives which prompted my right hon. and gallant Friend to explain this matter to the House as he has done, and obviously anything which helps to save the lives of airmen is commendable. Nevertheless, it will be necessary now to train 700 immobile women who may be carefully selected but who, because of the fact that they are immobile, cannot be taken from surrounding districts. As there are a great many men over 50 who are extremely efficient and who have very rapid minds, will not my right hon. and gallant Friend consider accepting recommendations from the respective controllers at the centres that such men shall be retained?

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.